2016 (12) TMI 482 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - export of goods - Notification no. 41/2007-ST dated 6.10.2007 - manufacture and export of soya bean extract - time bar - whether the refund claim, filed before the wrong authority in time, and subsequently filed with delay before the proper authority, is to be held as filed within time? - Held that - the refund claim, which has been filed within time before the wrong authority, is to be held as filed in time. I also note that the authorities below have not examined the claim on merits. The learned Departmental Representative has also pointed out certain misgivings on the eligibility of the refund claim on merits. Hence, I deem it proper to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Original Adjudicating authority. He shall consider the claim as filed in time and examine the same on merit and pass an appropriate order. I make it clear that the appellant may be given due opportunity of hearing before passing the denovo orders - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim under Notification no. 41/2007-ST disallowed on the ground of time bar.

Analysis:
The appellant, engaged in the manufacture and export of soya bean extract, filed a refund claim under Notification no. 41/2007-ST for the quarter April to June 2009. The claim was initially filed before the wrong authority, the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Indore, on 31.12.2009, instead of the jurisdictional authority, the Assistant Commissioner, Ujjain. The claim was returned on 27.04.2010 with a direction to file before the proper authority and was subsequently filed before AC, Ujjain on 19.07.2010. The authorities rejected the claim as time-barred, as it was filed beyond the 6-month period stipulated in the notification. The appellant argued that the claim was originally filed on time and relied on a Tribunal decision approving such filings before a wrong authority followed by filing before the proper authority. The Departmental Representative stressed strict interpretation of the notification terms and highlighted non-compliance observations in the returned claim.

The Tribunal analyzed the issue and referred to a similar case where a refund claim filed before the wrong authority but within time was considered valid upon subsequent filing before the proper authority. Following this precedent, the Tribunal held that the refund claim, initially filed within time before the wrong authority, should be deemed as filed within time. Noting that the authorities did not assess the claim on merits and acknowledging misgivings raised by the Departmental Representative regarding claim eligibility, the Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter to the Original Adjudicating authority for a fresh examination on merits. The appellant was granted a hearing opportunity before the new decision.

Therefore, the appeal was allowed by way of remand, emphasizing the importance of considering claims filed within time before the wrong authority as valid and necessitating a thorough examination on the merits by the Adjudicating authority.