Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2017 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (8) TMI 1120 - AT - Service TaxRefund claim - time limitation - N/N. 41/2012-ST dated 29.06.2012 - Held that - It is well settled law that when the wordings of a notification are unambiguous, the same have to be adhered to. The expressions used in the notification laying down the date of export as the relevant date cannot be held to be ambiguous, thus requiring any no legal expertise to interpret them. It is well settled that neither any extraneous expressions or wordings can be introduced nor any wordings of notification can be ignored, while interpreting the same. The appellant s claim has to be adjudged in the light of the clear expression used in the notification. As such, I am of the view that the lower authorities have rightly held against the assessee as regards the limitation aspect - refund rightly denied - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
Issues:
Refund claim time bar under Notification No. 41/2012-ST for service tax paid on input services used for export. Analysis: The appellant, engaged in the manufacture and export of Sugar and Molasses, filed a refund claim for service tax paid on input services used for export under Notification No. 41/2012-ST. The claim was filed beyond the one-year limitation period from the date of export, as specified in the notification. Lower authorities proposed to reject the claim on grounds of time bar, leading to the original adjudicating authority and Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the rejection. The appellant cited a Tribunal precedent in the case of M/s. KKSK Leather Processors (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Salem, under Notification No. 41/2007, where the Tribunal considered the relevant date for limitation under Section 11 B of the Central Excise Act as the date of payment of service tax to the service provider. However, lower authorities rejected this argument, emphasizing the clear date of export as the relevant date provided in the current notification, making the Tribunal's interpretation of the previous notification inapplicable. Upon reviewing the Tribunal's earlier order, it was noted that the relevant date under Notification No. 41/2007 was determined based on Section 11 B of the Act due to the absence of a specific time limit in that notification. In contrast, Notification No. 41/2012-ST explicitly stated the one-year limitation from the date of export for claiming rebate on service tax, making the date of export the decisive factor, not the date of service tax payment to the provider. The principle of adhering to unambiguous notification wordings was stressed, emphasizing that clear expressions must be followed without introducing extraneous elements or ignoring any terms. Referring to the Hon'ble Madras High Court decision in CCE, Coimbatore Vs. GTN Engineering (I) Ltd., it was highlighted that limitation is not a procedural matter but a statutory requirement that must be strictly adhered to without room for extension or condonation of delays by the Tribunal. The Tribunal, being bound by legal provisions, cannot overlook statutory time limits. Consequently, the delay of around 13 days in filing the refund claim could not be considered for condonation. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision, rejecting the appeal due to the appellant's failure to meet the one-year limitation period from the date of export as mandated by Notification No. 41/2012-ST. The judgment emphasized the importance of complying with unambiguous notification provisions and statutory time limits, reiterating that the Tribunal cannot extend or condone delays in such cases.
|