2017 (4) TMI 898 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - denial on account that appellant had not obtained registration and in the case of refund claim for 4/2012 to 6/2012, the refund claim made on 28.06.2013 is barred by limitation - Circular issued by Registry is sufficient compliance of Rule 6(A) of CESTAT Procedure Rules or not? - Held that - The issue whether assessee is eligible for refund for the period prior to obtaining registration is settled by the judgment in the case of the M/s m Portal India Wireless Solution Pvt. Ltd. 2011 (9) TMI 450 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT , where it was held that Registration not compulsory for refund - the rejection of refund on the ground that appellant had not obtained registration before filing of refund claim is not legal or proper. Time limitation - Held that - In the case of export of services, the relevant date (starting point) for computing the period of one year as prescribed in Section 11 B of C.E Act would be the date of receipt of FICR - The Ld. Counsel does not have a case that when computed from the date of receipt of FICR, the refund claim filed for quarter June, 2012 is fully within time. He submitted that some of the transactions would be within time. This aspect has to be verified by the adjudicating authority. Appeal partly allowed - part matter on remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of refund claim based on procedural irregularities.
2. Rejection of refund claim due to lack of registration and time limitations.

Analysis:
1. The appellant's appeal against the rejection of the refund claim was considered by the Appellate Tribunal. The appellant had filed four sets of appeals relating to different refund applications, but only one set of appeal book was submitted, which was in compliance with a Circular issued by the Registry due to space constraints. The Tribunal held that the single paper book filed by the appellant was sufficient compliance with the procedural rules, and the appeals were taken up for disposal collectively.

2. The appellant, engaged in providing taxable services, filed refund claims for four quarters of 2012-2013, citing exports of "Surveillance Monitoring Service" to a US-based company and input services not utilized. The refund claim was rejected on grounds of lack of registration and being time-barred. The Commissioner (Appeal) upheld the rejection, leading to the current appeal.

3. The appellant argued that registration was not a prerequisite for a refund, citing relevant judgments. Regarding the time limitation, the appellant contended that the refund claim was filed within the prescribed period, as per notifications specifying the time limit for filing refund claims. The appellant emphasized that the starting point for computing the limitation should be the end of the relevant quarter, not the one-year period under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

4. The respondent reiterated the rejection grounds, stating that the appellant obtained registration after the period covered by the refund claim, justifying the rejection on this basis. Regarding time limitations, the respondent argued that the claim was filed beyond the one-year period specified under Section 11B, considering the date of export of services as the starting point for computation.

5. The Tribunal analyzed the issues raised, citing precedents to support its decision. It held that the rejection based on lack of registration was not justified, aligning with previous judgments. Regarding the time limitation issue, the Tribunal directed the adjudicating authority to compute the one-year period from the date of receipt of FICR, allowing the refund for transactions falling within this period. The appeal was partly allowed based on these findings.