2015 (3) TMI 599 - AT - Service Tax

Denial of refund claim - Bar of limitation - Unutilized CENVAT Credit - appellant has not filed hard copy of the refund claim filed (electronically) - Held that - Appellant has been filed refund claim electronically in time. As this refund claim was filed electronically within time limit prescribed as per Section 11B of the Act and as held by this Tribunal in the case of NCS Pearson India Pvt Ltd. 2015 (3) TMI 439 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , I hold that date of filing of refund claim electronically should be considered as date of filing of refund claim. I find that the in the Impugned order refund claim has not been considered on merits. Therefore, impugned order is set aside and matter remanded to the adjudicating authority to consider the refund claim on merits being filed within time - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claim rejected as time-barred under section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. Requirement of filing hard copy of the refund claim filed electronically.
3. Interpretation of the date of filing a refund claim electronically.
4. Consideration of refund claim on merits.

Analysis:

1. The appellant appealed against the rejection of their refund claim as time-barred under section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant had filed refund claims electronically on the ACES web portal following CBEC Circular No. 919/09/2010-CX and Trade Notice No. 14/ST/09. However, the appellant did not submit a hard copy of the electronically filed refund claim, leading to the claim being considered time-barred. The appellant contended that the acknowledgment of the electronic filing should suffice, citing a similar case precedent. The learned AR argued that the appellant failed to comply with the statutory requirement of submitting supporting documents along with the refund claim, as mandated by Notification No. 5/2006-CE (NT). The Tribunal held that the electronic filing within the prescribed time should be considered the date of filing, setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter for consideration on merits.

2. The issue of whether a hard copy of the refund claim filed electronically was necessary arose during the proceedings. The appellant's counsel argued that if there was a requirement for a hard copy, the acknowledgment by the department should not have been issued. The Tribunal considered the lack of hard copy submission but focused on the timely electronic filing as the crucial factor in determining the validity of the refund claim. The Tribunal emphasized that the acknowledgment of electronic filing should be sufficient to establish the filing date, aligning with the precedent set in a similar case.

3. The interpretation of the date of filing a refund claim electronically was a key point of contention. The Tribunal relied on the precedent in the case of NCS Pearson India Pvt. Ltd., where it was established that the date of electronic filing should be recognized as the date of filing the refund claim. This interpretation was pivotal in the Tribunal's decision to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter for further consideration on merits. The Tribunal's analysis emphasized the importance of timely electronic filing in determining the validity of the refund claim.

4. Lastly, the Tribunal addressed the necessity of considering the refund claim on merits. Despite the initial rejection based on being time-barred, the Tribunal directed the adjudicating authority to evaluate the refund claim on its merits since it was filed electronically within the prescribed time limit. By setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter, the Tribunal ensured that the refund claim would be assessed based on its substantive merits rather than solely on procedural grounds.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues addressed by the Tribunal and the legal reasoning behind its decision to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter for further consideration.