2016 (4) TMI 1033 - AT - Service Tax

Sustainability of refund claim - provisions of Notification No.41/2012-ST dated 29.6.2012 - Service tax remitted by the appellant - Appellant utilized certain services like Goods Transport Agency and Warehousing Agency services at the port of export of its goods claiming that the place of removal of exported goods is the factory gate and that on input services used at the port, it was entitled to rebate as per the Notification. Held that - the contention of appellant that since the delay was not considerable, the authorities below should have exercised discretion and condoned the same is not acceptable. Paragraph 3(g) of the Notification 41/2012-ST clearly indicates the period of limitation and provides no discretion for condonation of the delay. In the circumstances, it cannot be gainfully contended that the authority had a reservoir of discretion to condone the delay , if satisfied with reasons for the delay for making an application for refund. In so far as the finding that the services were not used beyond the place of removal, it is clear that the place of removal is not the factory gate as claimed by the appellant but is the port from where the goods were removed for export. Therefore, the impugned orders as to the unsustainability of refund claims submitted by the appellant, are impeccable and warrant no appellate interference. - Decided against the appellant

Summary

Issues:
- Refund of service tax under Notification No.41/2012-ST for exported goods
- Rejection of refund claims by Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise, and Service Tax, Dehradun
- Place of removal for exported goods and eligibility for refund
- Limitation period for filing refund claims under Notification 41/2012-ST
- Discretion for condonation of delay in filing refund claims
- Utilization of services beyond the place of removal for export goods

Analysis:
The appellant, a manufacturer of excisable goods, filed refund claims for service tax under Notification No.41/2012-ST for services used in exporting goods. The claims were rejected by the Deputy Commissioner citing that the place of removal for export goods was the port and services were not utilized beyond that point. Additionally, the claims were found to be beyond the limitation period specified in the notification.

Regarding the limitation period, the Tribunal noted that Paragraph 3(g) of Notification 41/2012-ST explicitly states the one-year time limit for filing refund claims, without allowing any discretion for condonation of delay. The Tribunal emphasized that the authority had no discretion to extend the time limit, even if the delay was not substantial, as the notification provided a clear timeline for filing claims.

The Tribunal also clarified that the place of removal for the exported goods was the port, not the factory gate as claimed by the appellant. As the services were not utilized beyond the port of export, the appellant was deemed ineligible for the refund of service tax under the notification.

Based on the above analysis, the Tribunal found the conclusions of the impugned orders regarding the rejection of refund claims to be valid and upheld them without any appellate interference. The appeals were dismissed as they lacked merit, with no costs imposed on either party.