2017 (1) TMI 234 - AT - Service Tax

Rejection of refund claim - N/N. 41/2007 prescribes that refund claim should be filed within six months from the date of export - delay in filing refund claim but within one year of the exports - Time limitation - Held that - I find that a similar issue came up before this Tribunal in the case of CCE Pune Vs. Chandrashekhar Exports 2015 (11) TMI 1112 - CESTAT MUMBAI wherein Main conditions as laid down in the act are fulfilled i.e. there has to be export of goods and the service tax liability has to be paid to the service provider and the same must have been used for the export of the goods which conditions are fulfilled by the respondent and thus refund was allowed. The time limit prescribed in notification issued from time to time is to supplement the provision of mere act and hold that as the appellant has complied with condition of the notification. Therefore merely on the ground of limitation refund cannot be rejected - appellant is entitled for refund claim - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against rejection of refund claim under notification number 41/2007 on the ground of limitation.

Analysis:
The appellant filed four refund claims for the period October 2007 to September 2008 within one year of exports but with a certain delay. The claims were rejected as time-barred under notification 41/2007, which required claims to be filed within six months from the date of export. The appellant contended that the time limit was later extended to one year in 2009. Citing a previous case, the appellant argued that the time limit was procedural and should not deny the substantial benefit of the notification. The respondent opposed, stating that the time limit cannot be extended under section 11B of the Central Excise Act.

The Tribunal considered previous rulings and observed that the appellant had exported goods and was eligible for a refund of service tax paid by service providers. The Tribunal noted that the time limit for filing refund claims under notification 41/2007 was extended to one year from the date of export. Therefore, the appellant's claims, filed within this extended period, were eligible for consideration, subject to fulfilling other conditions stipulated in the notification. The Tribunal referred to decisions by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay and circulars by the C.B.E. & C. to support the retrospective amendment of procedures and the eligibility for refund within the extended time period.

Consequently, the Tribunal held that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of the refund claim under the amended notification, and the time-bar aspect did not apply. The matter was remanded to the original adjudicating authority to ensure compliance with other conditions in the notification. The Tribunal emphasized that the time limit prescribed in notifications is supplementary to the main act, and compliance with notification conditions should determine refund eligibility. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and allowed the appeals, granting consequential relief to the appellant.