2017 (3) TMI 422 - AT - Service Tax

Time limit applicable to file refund claim in terms of N/N. 41/2007-ST dated 06/10/2007 - the Original Authority rejected the claim on the question of time bar as the claim has been filed after six months of the relevant date - Held that - the condition of time limit specified in the said notification to claim the exemption by way of filing a claim has to be adhered to by the respondent. There is no provision to extend the said time limit. There is no reason to bring in the provisions of Section 11B, in the absence of any such link or reference in the said notification - appeal allowed - decided in favor of Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Dispute over the time limit for a refund claim filed under Notification 41/2007-ST dated 06/10/2007.
2. Applicability of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 to the provision of exemption notification.
3. Delay in filing a cross-appeal and its impact on the case.

Issue 1: Time Limit for Refund Claim:
The case involved a dispute regarding the time limit applicable to a refund claim filed by the respondent under Notification 41/2007-ST. The respondent filed a claim for refund of service tax for goods exported during a specific period. The Original Authority rejected the claim as it was filed after six months of the relevant date. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the time limit mentioned in the notification is procedural, and since the claim was filed within one year, as allowed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, it should be allowed.

Issue 2: Applicability of Section 11B:
The Revenue contested the Commissioner's decision, arguing that the time limit prescribed in Notification 41/2007-ST was not merely procedural but contained conditions and limitations for extending the exemption granted by way of a refund. They claimed that Section 11B, which deals with refund of duty erroneously paid, cannot apply to an exemption notification without reference to it. The respondent, on the other hand, argued that the substantive provision of Section 11B should prevail and that the delayed filing of the claim should not be a reason for rejection.

Issue 3: Delay in Cross-Appeal:
Additionally, there was a cross-appeal filed by the respondent after a significant delay of six years, without any request for condonation of the delay. While the Department's appeal was filed earlier, the respondent cited a change in management as the reason for the delay. During arguments, the focus was mainly on contesting the Revenue's appeal on its merits.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found that the time limit specified in Notification 41/2007-ST for claiming the exemption through a refund claim must be adhered to by the respondent. Since there was no provision to extend this time limit and no reference to Section 11B in the notification, the impugned order was deemed legally unsustainable. The original order was restored, and the appeal by Revenue was allowed, with the cross-objection also being disposed of.