2017 (7) TMI 646 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - time limitation - whether the refund of service tax in terms of N/N. 52/2001-ST dated 30-12-2011 in respect of service tax paid on the input service and used for export of service is admissible when it is filed beyond the limitation of one year as provided under said notification? - Held that - As per the statutory time limit, the refund must be filed within one year from the date of export. There is no discretion provided for any authority to condon the delay. In the present case undisputedly refund claim was filed after one year from the date of exports - refund filed by the appellant is clearly time bar and the same cannot be entertained - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues involved:
Whether the refund of service tax under Notification No.52/2001-ST for service tax paid on input services used for export is admissible when filed beyond the one-year limitation period.

Analysis:
The issue in this case revolves around the admissibility of a refund claim for service tax under Notification No.52/2001-ST, specifically concerning the time limit for filing the claim. The appellant argued that despite filing the refund claim after the one-year period, there were genuine reasons for the delay and requested condonation. The appellant cited a case to support their argument. On the other hand, the Revenue contended that the statutory time limit for filing the refund claim does not allow for any discretion to condone delays. They supported their stance by referencing several judgments related to similar refund situations.

Upon careful consideration and record examination, the Tribunal noted that as per the notification, the refund claim must be filed within one year from the date of export, without any provision for condoning delays. The Tribunal highlighted that the appellant's claim was filed after the stipulated one-year period. They differentiated the appellant's case from the cited case, emphasizing that the circumstances were distinct, and the judgments referenced by the Revenue directly supported their position. Consequently, the Tribunal found the refund claim to be time-barred and dismissed the appeals, affirming the sustainability of the impugned order.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision was based on the strict adherence to the statutory time limit for filing refund claims under Notification No.52/2001-ST, emphasizing the absence of provisions for condoning delays. The judgment underscored the importance of timely compliance with refund regulations and highlighted the significance of factual distinctions in determining the applicability of legal precedents.