2016 (2) TMI 258 - AT - Service Tax

Refund - specified services requires for authorised operation in the Special Economic Zone (SEZ) - period of limitation - - Notification No. 9/2009 ST, dated 03.03.2009. - The appellant has contended that the ground of rejection namely non-submission of list of authorised operations - Held that - Refund cannot be denied merely for procedural lapse - if otherwise assessee is eligible to get refund, it should be allowed - Decision in the case of Intas Pharma Ltd vs. C.S.T. - 2013 (7) TMI 703 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD followed. Period of limitation - As regards the issue of time-bar the appellant has contended that in one case there is a delay of 2 days because of the intervening Saturday and Sunday and the claim was filed on Monday. Further the Assistant/Deputy commissioner had power to condone the delay in terms of para 2 (f) of notification No. 9/2009 - ST - Held that - Having regard to the nature of refunds and quantum of delay, we are of the view that the delay not being unreasonable deserved o be condoned in terms of the aforesaid para 2(f) of Notification No.9/2009-ST. Refund allowed - Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of refund claims under Notification No. 9/2009 ST for specific amounts in the cases of Makers Mart and Prince Exports.
2. Grounds for rejection: non-submission of list of specified services for SEZ operations, time-barred claims, and lack of proof of service tax payment.
3. Appellant's contentions: citing precedent case of Intas Pharma Ltd, seeking condonation of delay by Commissioner (Appeals).

Analysis:
1. The appeals were filed against the rejection of refund claims under Notification No. 9/2009 ST for different amounts in the cases of Makers Mart and Prince Exports. The rejection was based on various grounds, including the non-submission of the list of specified services required for SEZ operations and time-barred claims due to delays in filing and lack of proof of service tax payment.

2. The rejection of the refund claims was upheld by the appellate authority citing specific reasons. The non-submission of the list of specified services required for SEZ operations, as approved by the Approval Committee, was deemed essential for sanctioning refund claims under Notification No. 9/2009 ST. Additionally, part of the refund claims was rejected as time-barred, filed after the expiry of six months from the date of actual service tax payment, and for not submitting the necessary documentation.

3. The appellant argued that the ground of rejection regarding the non-submission of the list of authorized operations was considered in a previous case and found to be untenable. They also contended that the delays in filing the claims should have been condoned by the Commissioner (Appeals), as permissible under the relevant provisions.

4. Upon considering the appellant's contentions, the Tribunal analyzed the issues in detail. Regarding the non-submission of the approved list of authorized operations, the Tribunal referred to the case of Intas Pharma Ltd and concluded that the immunity to service tax provided under the relevant Acts cannot be eclipsed by procedural requirements outlined in notifications like No. 9/2009 and 15/2009. These notifications facilitate the process of claiming refunds but do not disentitle immunity to service tax.

5. Concerning the time-bar issue, the appellant highlighted a minor delay of two days due to intervening Saturday and Sunday. The Tribunal acknowledged that the delays were not unreasonable and deserved to be condoned, especially considering the nature of refunds and the quantum of delay, as permitted under para 2(f) of Notification No. 9/2009 ST.

6. In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and allowed the appeals with consequential relief, emphasizing the importance of considering the specific circumstances and legal provisions while adjudicating refund claims under the relevant notifications.