9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (2) TMI 1487 - AT - Service TaxRefund of Service Tax paid - time limitation - period for filing the refund claim in the original Notification was 60 days from the end of quarter - amendment to 6 months vide amending Notification No. 32/08 - applicability of Board s Circular No. 112/6/2009 - discrepancies in the invoices too - HELD THAT - As per the Board s Circular No. 112/6/2009 dated 12.3.2009, the amended and extended period of 6 months would apply to pending refund claims. The issue is no more res integra and stand settled by the Tribunal in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, SURAT VERSUS ESSAR STEEL LTD. 2010 (9) TMI 334 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD laying down that extended period of limitation of six months vide notification No. 32/08 ST dated 18.11.08 has to be given effect retrospectively and would equally apply to pending refund claims - As such, inasmuch as all the refund claims stand filed within a period of six months from the end of quarter for which they have been filed, there are no merit in the Revenue s contention. Discrepancies in the invoices - HELD THAT - The appellate authority has examined every invoice and has rightly observed that even if there are some discrepancies in the invoices, entire refund claim cannot be denied on that ground. He has also observed that all the substantiated conditions stand fulfilled by the respondent and has also examined the work sheet placed on record by the appellant containing all the related details. Revenue in their memo of appeal have not been able to bring out any such substantiated condition, which is leading to denial of the refund claims - there are no infirmity in the views adopted by the Commissioner (Appeals), thus requiring any interference. Appeal of Revenue dismissed.
Issues:
1. Refund of Service Tax paid on inputs services for export purposes. 2. Validity of refund claims filed within the extended period. 3. Rejection of refund claims due to discrepancies in invoices. Analysis: Issue 1: Refund of Service Tax paid on inputs services for export purposes The appeal pertains to the refund of Service Tax paid on various inputs services used for export as per Notification No. 41/2007. The period for filing refund claims was initially 60 days but extended to 6 months by Notification No. 32/08. The Board's Circular clarified that the extended period applies to pending refund claims. The Revenue rejected six refund claims due to incomplete invoice details and initiated proceedings against the assessee. Issue 2: Validity of refund claims filed within the extended period The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that all refund claims were filed within the 6-month period specified in the amending notification, making them valid. He observed that discrepancies in invoices were only in a few cases, and most claims had all necessary details. The Commissioner held that refunds were admissible as no valid objections were raised. He emphasized that if substantive conditions were not met, the claims could be rejected after verification. Issue 3: Rejection of refund claims due to discrepancies in invoices The Revenue appealed the Commissioner's decision, arguing that the extended limitation period should not apply retrospectively. However, the Tribunal's precedent in cases like CCE Surat vs. Essar Steel Ltd. and Faizan Shoes (P) Ltd. established that the 6-month limitation period applies to pending refund claims. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's contention as all claims were filed within the specified period. Regarding invoice discrepancies, the appellate authority examined each invoice and found that minor discrepancies did not warrant denial of the entire refund claim. The Revenue failed to identify any condition justifying the rejection of claims, leading to the dismissal of their appeal. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, emphasizing the importance of meeting substantive conditions for refund claims and the retrospective application of the extended limitation period. The Revenue's appeal was rejected, affirming the validity of the refund claims and the Commissioner's findings on invoice discrepancies.
|
