2014 (12) TMI 374 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of service tax - CHA service - Notification No. 9/2009-S.T., dated 3-3-2009 - Exemption to goods supplied to SEZ - Held that - According to clause-2(f) of the Notification No. 9/2009-S.T., dated 3-3-2009 the claim for refund shall be filed, within six months or such extended period as the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, shall permit, from the date of actual payment of service tax by such developer or unit to service provider. In this case, the respondents have good reasons for the delay but the same have been rejected on the ground that the respondent is very big and they are well aware of all the provisions of law and they have the latest communication technologies available to them. In my opinion, since the respondents are eligible for refund claim and this was in the initial period of implementation of new procedure for claiming the refund, the observations of learned Commissioner (Appeals) are valid and condonation of delay by him is in accordance with law. - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Claim for refund of service tax paid on CHA service utilized during a specific period in a Special Economic Zone (SEZ). Delay in filing the refund claim beyond the prescribed period. Dispute regarding condonation of delay in filing the refund claim. Applicability of Notification No. 9/2009-S.T. dated 3-3-2009.

Analysis:
The case involved a claim for refund of service tax paid on CHA service utilized in an SEZ during a specified period. The claim was filed after a significant delay of more than two years, beyond the six months period stipulated in Notification No. 9/2009-S.T. dated 3-3-2009. The original adjudicating authority and the Assistant Commissioner rejected the refund claims as time-barred due to the delay in filing. A show cause notice proposing rejection of the claim was issued on this basis.

The respondent appealed the decision, contending that the delay should be condoned. The Commissioner, on appeal, took the view that the delay was justified and allowed the refund claims. The main issue revolved around whether the delay in filing the refund claim should be condoned or not, considering the circumstances of the case.

The original adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim citing reasons such as the claimant's awareness of the provisions of law, their access to communication facilities, and logistical problems as insufficient grounds for the delay. However, the Commissioner disagreed and found that the delay could be condoned based on the specific circumstances of the case.

The appellate tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner, emphasizing that the respondents had valid reasons for the delay in filing the refund claim. The tribunal noted that the respondents were eligible for the refund claim, especially considering the initial period of implementing the new procedure for claiming refunds. Therefore, the observations of the Commissioner regarding the condonation of delay were deemed valid and in accordance with the law, leading to the rejection of the appeal filed by the Revenue.

In conclusion, the tribunal affirmed the decision to condone the delay in filing the refund claim, highlighting the specific circumstances of the case and the eligibility of the respondents for the refund claim. The judgment underscored the importance of considering the practical challenges faced by taxpayers, especially in the initial stages of implementing new procedures, in determining the condonation of delays in such matters.