2015 (3) TMI 525 - AT - Service Tax

Denial of refund claim - appellants have failed to fulfill the conditions in Clause 2 (c) (d) (e) of the Notification No. 41/2007. - Held that - In the show-cause notice itself it was stated that appellant was not a registered central excise manufacturer and therefore he was required to file a declaration with the concerned jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner which had not been done by them. They had also not obtained the service tax code. Moreover refund claim is required to be filed within two months from the quarter and the first two claims were filed much later. - On going through the appeal memorandum, I find that the appellants have claimed that these are only procedural omissions and therefore substantial benefit should not be denied. Other than saying that the omissions happened in the beginning because of lack of knowledge and ignorance, there is no other explanation forthcoming. It is seen that the Notification was issued on 06.10.2007 and even after one year, the appellants did not take care to fulfill the conditions and there is not even a claim that conditions have been fulfilled subsequently. It cannot be said that these are not substantive conditions for sanctioning of refund - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Eligibility of the appellant for refund of service tax under Notification No. 41/2007-ST dated 06.10.2007.

Analysis:
1. The issue involved in this case pertains to the eligibility of the appellant for a refund of service tax amounts under Notification No. 41/2007-ST dated 06.10.2007. The claims for refund were partly rejected due to the appellant's failure to fulfill the conditions specified in the notification.

2. The Notification No. 41/2007 provides for the refund of service tax paid for services provided to an exporter for the export of goods. The conditions outlined in Clause 2 (c) (d) (e) of the notification are crucial for determining eligibility for the refund. These conditions include filing a declaration with the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner, obtaining a service tax code, and filing the refund claim on a quarterly basis within a specified timeframe.

3. The appellant in this case failed to fulfill the conditions mentioned in the notification. They were not a registered central excise manufacturer and did not file the required declaration with the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner or obtain the service tax code within the stipulated timeline. Additionally, the refund claims were not filed within the prescribed period, as highlighted in the show-cause notice.

4. Despite the appellant's argument that the omissions were procedural and due to lack of knowledge, the tribunal found that these conditions were substantive and essential for the sanctioning of the refund. The appellant's delay in fulfilling the conditions even a year after the notification was issued indicated a lack of diligence on their part. As there was no evidence to suggest subsequent compliance with the conditions, the tribunal concluded that the appellant had no valid case for the refund.

5. Consequently, the tribunal rejected the appeal, emphasizing that the appellant's failure to meet the essential conditions outlined in the notification rendered them ineligible for the refund of service tax amounts claimed. The decision was based on the clear non-compliance with the procedural requirements specified in the notification, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, legal provisions, and the tribunal's reasoning behind the decision to reject the appellant's claim for a refund of service tax amounts.