2017 (5) TMI 1083 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - the refund claim was returned on 16.9.2009 by the Asst. commissioner as it was not filed in the prescribed proforma and pointing out other deficiencies. The appellant removed the deficiencies and filed revised claim on 22.4.2009 - time limitation - Held that - in the Annexure attached to the prescribed proforma the details of invoices, shipping bills, value, Service Tax paid etc. alongwith classification of service on which refund was claimed has been mentioned - appeal remanded to the Adjudicating authority for the purpose of verification of the documents on record and that would be produced by the appellant at the time of de novo proceeding to establish the claim - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claim filed within prescribed time limit under Notification No.41/2007-ST.
2. Rejection of refund claim on grounds of limitation and merit.
3. Applicability of judgment in KLA India Public Ltd's case.
4. Verification of documents for eligibility of refund claim under Notification No.41/2007-ST.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) rejecting a refund claim of Service Tax paid on exported goods. The appellant initially filed the refund claim within the time limit prescribed under Notification No.41/2007-ST, but it was returned due to deficiencies. The appellant resubmitted the claim after addressing the deficiencies. Both lower authorities rejected the claim citing limitation and merit issues.

The advocate for the appellant argued that the resubmitted claim was not time-barred as it was filed within the prescribed time limit initially. He also highlighted that the Tribunal had remanded similar cases for further scrutiny. On the other hand, the authorized representative for the Revenue supported the lower authorities' findings, stating that the revised application was time-barred due to initial deficiencies. He referenced a judgment in the case of KLA India Public Ltd to support this argument.

In response, the consultant for the appellant clarified that the deficiencies mentioned in the referenced judgment were different from the present case. After hearing both sides and examining the records, the Member (Judicial) found that the appellant had provided necessary details in the initial application and later submitted additional documents to address the deficiencies. The Member agreed with the consultant's argument that the judgment in KLA India Public Ltd's case might not be applicable to the current situation.

Regarding the merit of the refund claim, it was noted that the lower authorities had rejected the claim due to insufficient evidence. The consultant assured that all required documents would be submitted to establish eligibility for the refund. Considering similar circumstances in past cases, the Member remanded the appeal to the Adjudicating authority for further verification of documents to determine the eligibility of the refund claim under Notification No.41/2007-ST. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed by way of remand for a fresh decision on the merit of the refund claim.