9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (11) TMI 1112 - AT - Service TaxRefund claim - Notification No.41/2007-ST dated 06.10.2007 - export of goods - whether the appellant can get the refund of the amount having filed the refund claim on 31.03.2009 instead of 30.09.2008 - Held that - There is no dispute as to the fact that the appellant had exported the goods and had utilized the services of the service provider for such exports. It is also not in dispute that appellant is eligible for the refund of the amount of service tax paid by the service providers. First appellate authority has correctly recorded the fact that it is settled principle as to Rules and Notifications are issued from to time to supplement the provisions of main Act and grant of relief of refund of service tax paid on services used in export of goods has to be sanctioned to the respondent when conditions prescribed in the main Act are fulfilled. Main conditions as laid down in the act are fulfilled i.e. there has to be export of goods and the service tax liability has to be paid to the service provider and the same must have been used for the export of the goods which conditions are fulfilled by the respondent. - impugned order is correct and legal and does not require any interference. - Decided against Revenue.
Issues:
1. Dispute over the time period for filing the refund claim. 2. Interpretation of Notification No. 41/2007-ST regarding the time limit for filing refund claims. 3. Whether the appellant fulfilled the conditions for refund under the Notification. 4. Applicability of previous Tribunal decisions and High Court judgments in similar cases. 5. Comparison with the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in a related case. Analysis: Issue 1: Dispute over the time period for filing the refund claim The Revenue contested the Order-in-Appeal that set aside the rejection of the refund claim due to filing after the prescribed period. The appellant filed the refund claim on 31.03.2009 for services used in goods exported between January 2008 to March 08, beyond the six-month limit set by Notification No.41/2007-ST. The first appellate authority considered this a procedural lapse that could be condoned. Issue 2: Interpretation of Notification No. 41/2007-ST The Revenue argued that conditions of the Notification had to be fulfilled to claim benefits, citing M. Ambalal & Co. case. The first appellate authority had set aside the order-in-original despite clear findings on the time limit for filing the refund claim. The appellant's counsel argued that the time limit could be extended based on procedural lapses, citing Tribunal decisions in similar cases. Issue 3: Fulfillment of conditions for refund under the Notification Both parties agreed that the appellant exported goods and used services for which a refund was due. The dispute centered on the timing of the refund claim. The Tribunal found that the main conditions of export and payment of service tax were met. The first appellate authority's decision was supported by the Tribunal's previous ruling in Raymond Ltd. case. Issue 4: Applicability of previous Tribunal decisions and High Court judgments The Tribunal referred to previous decisions in Sandoz Polymers Pvt. Ltd. and Raymond Ltd. cases, where similar issues were decided in favor of the assessee. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of fulfilling conditions stipulated in the Notification for claiming refunds, as clarified by the High Court of Bombay in Uttam Steel Ltd. case. Issue 5: Comparison with the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court The Tribunal distinguished the present case from the N. Ambalal & Co. case, stating that the conditions under the main Act were fulfilled in the current situation. The Tribunal held that the appellant was eligible for the refund claim under the Notification, and the time-bar issue did not apply. The impugned order was deemed correct and legal, leading to the rejection of the Revenue's appeal. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented by both parties, relevant legal precedents, and the Tribunal's final decision based on the interpretation of the law and Notification provisions.
|
