2016 (12) TMI 1327 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - period of limitation - Notification No.41/2007-ST - rejection of refund claims for non-corelation of duty paying documents with the export documents - Held that - In the interest of justice the Order-in-Appeal dated 21.04.2011 passed by the First Appellate Authority is required to be set aside and the matter is remanded to the Adjudicating Authority to decide the issue denovo in the light of Order-in-Original dated 22.03.2010 passed in the case of M/s. S.K.Sarawagi & Co. (P) Ltd. As per the argument of the Appellant the issues involved in the present proceedings are identical to the facts in the case of Order-in-Original dated 22.03.2010 in the case of M/s. S.K.Sarawagi & Co. (P) Ltd. - Matter remanded back.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether refund claims filed by the Appellant under Notification No.41/2007-ST are time-barred.
2. Whether the rejection of refund claims for non-correlation of duty paying documents with the export documents by the Commissioner (Appeals) is justified.

Issue 1:
The Appellant filed COD applications due to technical reasons against Order-in-Appeal No. 124-126/ST/Kol/2011. The main appeal, No.ST/222/2011, was filed in time, but two more technical appeals, ST/75098/2016 and ST/75099/2016, were filed later. The delay was attributed to technical issues. The COD applications were allowed, and all appeals, including the main appeal, were taken for final disposal together.

Issue 2:
The First Appellate Authority allowed the Appeals filed by the department under Order-in-Appeal dated 21.04.2011 concerning three show cause notices for different quarters under Notification No.41/2007-St. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the refund for the quarter ending March 2008 as time-barred. The Appellant argued that similar delays were faced by other entities whose refund claims were sanctioned. The Revenue relied on case law to argue against condoning delays beyond 60 days.

Analysis:
The main issue revolves around the timeliness of refund claims under Notification No.41/2007-ST and the justification for rejection based on non-correlation of documents. The Appellant's case highlighted similarities with other cases where refunds were sanctioned despite technical objections. The timing of various orders and the reliance on previous decisions played a crucial role in the judgment. The decision to remand the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for a fresh decision based on equity principles indicates a need for a thorough review of the case in light of past precedents. The Appellant's right to present their case during the remand proceedings underscores the importance of procedural fairness in resolving such matters.