2016 (12) TMI 660 - AT - Service Tax

Rejection of refund claim - service tax amounts which have been paid on specified services received under the N/N. 17/2011-ST, dated 01.03.2001 pertaining to the period from January, 2011 to March, 2011 and April, 2011 to June, 2011 - compliance with the notification - Held that - It has to be noted that in the Show Cause Notice there is no allegation raised that the refund claims are filed beyond time limit. Be that as it may, the original authority has given a clear cut finding in para 11 of Order-in-Original dated 28.02.2012 that the refund claims are filed within the time limit. This being so, the observation of Commissioner(Appeals) that refund claim is filed beyond the time limit is definitely unwarranted and unjustified. In view thereof, I find merits in the arguments raised by the appellants. The rejection of refund claim on time bar is unjustifiable. The appellant is eligible for the refund. The impugned order to the extent of rejecting the refund claim for the months January, 2011 and February, 2011 is set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant-assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection under Notification No. 17/2011-ST for services provided, Time limit for filing refund claim under Notification No. 9/2009-ST, Jurisdiction of Commissioner(Appeals) beyond Show Cause Notice.

Analysis:
The appeal involved the rejection of a refund claim by the appellant related to service tax amounts paid on specified services under Notification No. 17/2011-ST. The appellant was issued a Show Cause Notice proposing to reject the refund claims due to non-compliance with the notification's provisions. The refund claim was rejected by the refund sanctioning authority for non-compliance with Notification No. 17/2011-ST.

The appellants then appealed before the Commissioner(Appeals), who disallowed the refund for certain periods and directed a re-examination for the remaining claim. The refund sanctioning authority subsequently allowed the refund claim for periods other than those disallowed by the Commissioner(Appeals). The present appeal specifically addressed the rejection of refund for January, 2011 and February, 2011.

The appellant argued that the Commissioner(Appeals) rejected the refund claim for January and February 2011 citing a time limit issue, stating that the claim was filed beyond the prescribed time. The appellant contended that they correctly filed the claim under Notification No. 17/2011-ST, which had a one-year time limit, superseding the six-month limit in Notification No. 9/2009-ST. The appellant also highlighted that the adjudicating authority found the claims were filed within the time limit, making the Commissioner(Appeals)'s discussion on the time bar unwarranted.

The respondent reiterated that the claims for January and February 2011 should have been filed under Notification No. 9/2009-ST due to the time limit issue. However, the appellate tribunal noted that the Show Cause Notice did not raise any allegation regarding the claims being filed beyond the time limit. The original authority had explicitly stated that the claims were filed within the time limit, making the Commissioner(Appeals)'s rejection on time bar grounds unjustified.

Ultimately, the tribunal found merit in the appellant's arguments, setting aside the rejection of the refund claim for January and February 2011. The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant, declaring them eligible for the refund and providing consequential reliefs, if any.