2017 (9) TMI 883 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - denial on the ground of time limitation and also on the ground that the parking charges paid by the appellant have no nexus with the output service - Held that - the appellant has filed the refund claim online within time and as all the documents could not be filed by the appellant online, therefore, the appellant filed physically refund claim although after one year - The date of filing of the refund claims online should be taken into consideration to determine whether a particular refund claim has been filed within the time as specified in the N/N. 5/2006-CE (NT) dated 14.03.2006, therefore, the refund claim cannot be denied to the appellant. Denial of refund on parking charges - Held that - As the availment of cenvat credit has not been denied by the authorities below, the refund claim of the same cannot be denied on that ground that the said service is not the input service as per Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - refund allowed. Appeal allowed - refund allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claim denied as time-barred
2. Refund claim denied due to lack of nexus with output service

Analysis:
1. Refund Claim Time-Barred:
The appellant filed a refund claim online within the specified time frame but physically submitted it after one year from the date of export. The Revenue contended that the physical filing beyond one year made the claim ineligible for a refund. However, the Tribunal noted that since the online claim was submitted within the stipulated time, the physical submission should be considered in conjunction with the online filing. Referring to Notification No. 5/2006-CE (NT) dated 14.03.2006, the Tribunal held that the filing date online should be taken into account to determine the timeliness of the claim. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, deeming the refund claim admissible.

2. Nexus with Output Service:
The Revenue also rejected the refund claim on the basis that the parking charges paid by the appellant did not have a direct connection with the output services provided. However, the Tribunal observed that when the appellant availed the cenvat credit on parking charges, the Revenue did not dispute the nature of parking charges as input services under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Since the authorities did not challenge the availment of cenvat credit at that time, the Tribunal held that the refund claim could not be denied on the grounds that the parking charges were not considered input services. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant was entitled to the refund claim related to parking charges.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found no merit in the impugned order that rejected the refund claim. Consequently, the order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant, granting the requested relief.