2018 (2) TMI 2000 - AT - Service Tax

Second claim for Refund of service tax paid - service of Foreign Exchange Sales services provided by broker - rejection on the ground of time limitation - HELD THAT - The Revenue had not disputed the submission of the first Refund claim which is within the period of limitation. The appellant modified the refund claim and filed on 27/01/2009 for ₹ 4,20,403/- which is in continuation of the earlier refund claim. The Tribunal in various decisions held that re-submitted claim was in continuation to earlier claim and not hit by limitation and followed the decision of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of UNITED PHOSPHORUS LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA 2003 (5) TMI 76 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD . Hence, there is no reason to interfere in the order of the Commissioner (Appeal). Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing cross objection.
2. Time limitation for refund claim under Service Tax.
3. Appeal against rejection of refund claim.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses the issue of condoning the delay in filing the cross objection. The representative for the respondent mentioned the receipt of the appeal copy on 20th November, 2017. The Misc. application for condoning the delay is allowed, and the appeal is taken up for hearing.

2. The case involves the time limitation for a refund claim under Service Tax. The appellant manufactured and exported "High Carbon Ferro Chrome" and received taxable services under "Foreign Exchange Sales Services provided by Broker." The appellant submitted the first refund claim on 12/12/2008 for a specific amount. The refund claim was modified and resubmitted on 27/01/2009 for a reduced amount. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the refund claim as time-barred, but the Commissioner (Appeal) set aside the decision. The Tribunal found that the re-submitted claim was in continuation of the earlier claim and not hit by limitation, citing relevant precedents.

3. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the decision of the Commissioner (Appeal) to allow the refund claim. The Revenue contended that the second application for a refund was time-barred. However, the Commissioner (Appeal) found that both refund claims were identical, except for the reduced amount in the second claim. The Commissioner held that the first refund claim was within the stipulated period, and the rejection by the lower authority was not based on facts and law. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeal) based on previous judgments and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the Misc. application for condoning the delay, dismissed the Revenue's appeal against the rejection of the refund claim, and disposed of the cross objection. The decision was based on the finding that the re-submitted claim was a continuation of the earlier claim and not time-barred, in line with relevant legal principles and precedents.