2015 (11) TMI 1109 - AT - Service Tax

Denial of refund claim - Notification No.41/2007-ST dated 06.10.2007 - Bar of limitation - Held that - The exemption is administered by way of refund i.e. the service provider at the first stage has to pay the service tax attributable to the taxable services and thereafter has to file the refund application. In this context para 2 (e) of the said Notification is relevant, which provides that the claim for refund shall be filed on a quarterly basis, within 60 days from the end of the relevant quarter during which the said goods have been exported. In the present case, it is admitted fact on record that the export took place during the period July to September, 2008 and the refund application was filed by the appellant on 10.12.2010. As per the requirement of he said Notification, since the refund application has not been filed within the specified time limit prescribed therein, the same, in my opinion, is barred by limitation of time - No infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Jurisdictional Central Excise Commissioner - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim disallowed due to late filing under Notification No.41/2007-ST - Applicability of time limit for filing refund claim - Interpretation of Notification provisions - Comparison with Section 11B of Central Excise Act - Precedents cited by both parties - Jurisdictional Central Excise Commissioner's decision upheld.

Analysis:
The appeal challenged the Commissioner (Appeals) order disallowing a refund claim filed by the appellant, an exporter of general merchandise registered under the service tax statute, for service tax paid between July to September 2008. The claim was filed on 10.12.2010, exceeding the 60-day time limit stipulated in Notification No.41/2007-ST for filing refund claims post-exportation. The appellant argued that Section 11B of the Central Excise Act should apply for refund claims under the notification, citing precedents like K.K.S.K. Leather Processors Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Salem and Pioneer India Electronics (P) Ltd. vs. Union of India to support their position.

The respondent, represented by the DR, relied on the Tribunal's decisions in Spark Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE Ghaziabad and Sakey Overseas vs. CCE, Ludhiana, emphasizing strict adherence to the time limit specified in the notification for refund applications. The Tribunal noted that the export occurred between July to September 2008, and the refund claim was filed on 10.12.2010, beyond the prescribed time limit. The Tribunal opined that Section 11B of the Central Excise Act did not apply to the refund benefit claimed under the notification, as the notification itself mandated the time limit for filing refund claims.

The Tribunal distinguished the cited precedents, stating that they did not address the specific issue of refund claims under Notification No.41/2007, and upheld the Commissioner's decision to disallow the refund claim due to late filing. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant failed to comply with the time limit prescribed in the notification, thereby dismissing the appeal. The judgment highlighted the importance of adhering to the conditions mentioned in the notification for claiming refund benefits, irrespective of the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act or cited precedents not directly applicable to the case at hand.