2014 (8) TMI 667 - AT - Service Tax

Denial of refund claim - Bar of limitation - Held that - except for a portion of the claim prior to more than one year from the date of receipt of the claim by the Revenue, the balance amounts claimed as refund would be admissible has to be upheld. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed to the extent of refund claims within one year from the date of export as per the notification and the matter is remanded to the original adjudicating authority for fresh consideration of the claims in terms of the trade notice issued by Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Dibrugarh - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of refund claims based on the timeline for filing under different notifications.
2. Interpretation of Notification No. 17/2009-S.T. superseding Notification No. 41/2007-S.T.
3. Consideration of trade notice in determining the admissibility of refund claims.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses the rejection of two refund claims for quarters ending September 2008 and December 2008 due to not being filed within the stipulated timeline. The appellant argued that the claims were filed under Notification No. 17/2009-S.T., which allowed filing within one year from the date of export. The respondent contended that the earlier Notification No. 41/2007-S.T. applied. The Tribunal considered the submissions and noted the difference in timelines specified in the notifications.

2. The appellant argued that Notification No. 17/2009-S.T. superseded Notification No. 41/2007-S.T., making the latter inapplicable. The respondent asserted that the notifications should be considered based on the date of export, not the filing of the refund claim. The Tribunal examined the provisions of both notifications and the implications of their supersession, taking into account the argument presented by the appellant regarding the trade notice issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Dibrugarh.

3. The Tribunal referred to the trade notice, which clarified that even though Notification No. 17/2009-S.T. simplified the refund scheme, its benefits were akin to those under Notification No. 41/2007-S.T. The notice emphasized that the new notification did not preclude its applicability to exports predating its issuance, subject to specific conditions. Considering the trade notice and the arguments presented, the Tribunal decided to extend the benefit to the appellant, allowing the refund claims within one year from the date of export and remanding the matter for fresh consideration by the adjudicating authority in line with the trade notice.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the issues surrounding the rejection of refund claims, the interpretation of superseded notifications, and the significance of the trade notice in determining the admissibility of the claims.