2015 (11) TMI 221 - AT - Service Tax

Denial of refund claim - whether the time period extended for filing the refund claim by Notification 32/2008-ST is applicable in this case or otherwise - Held that - Same issue arose and Tribunal 2011 (7) TMI 748 - CESTAT, MUMBAI went into great detail as to what will be the effect of the substitution of words as indicated in Notification 32/2008-ST for increasing the period of filing the refund claim from 60 days to 6 months . - Bench has not held that amendment Notification 32/2008 will not be applicable and the period of 60 days will be applicable for the period in question. On perusal of the Judgment we find that the Bench has not given any reasoning to hold so while the Tribunal s judgement in the case of Essar Steel (2010 (9) TMI 334 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD) is a detailed one. In our view the detailed reasoning given in the judgement in Essar Steel will hold field and has to be followed. - impugned order is incorrect and is liable to be set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection based on time limit under Notification No. 41/2007-ST dated 06.10.2007; Interpretation of Notification No.32/2008 extending time limit to file refund claim.

Analysis:
The appeal challenged the rejection of a refund claim amounting to Rs. 1,56,732 filed by the appellant for services used in exporting goods. The claim was dismissed by lower authorities due to being filed beyond the stipulated "sixty days" from the end of the quarter as per Notification No. 41/2007-ST dated 06.10.2007. The appellant argued that Notification No.32/2008 dated 18.11.2008 substituted "60 days" with "six months," extending the filing period. The appellant relied on the Tribunal's decision in CCE Surat vs. Essar Steel Ltd. 2010 (20) STR 769 to support their stance.

The Deputy Commissioner contended that the amendment in Notification No.32/2008 was not retrospective, emphasizing adherence to the time limit set by Notification No.41/2007. Referring to a previous order by the Bench on a similar issue, the Deputy Commissioner maintained that the 60-day period must be followed.

The Tribunal considered both arguments and examined the case records. It acknowledged the appellant's eligibility for the refund but focused on whether the extended time limit under Notification 32/2008-ST applied. The Tribunal referred to the detailed analysis in the Essar Steel case, where the Tribunal had interpreted the impact of the substitution of words from "60 days" to "6 months." The Tribunal cited the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Indian Tobacco Association to support the interpretation of the term "substitution" in notifications.

The Tribunal found the Essar Steel judgment comprehensive and legally sound, contrasting it with a less detailed judgment cited by the Deputy Commissioner. Ultimately, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal with any consequential relief. The decision highlighted the importance of interpreting statutory notifications strictly and the significance of legal precedent in determining the outcome of such cases.