2018 (2) TMI 404 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of Service Tax paid on the goods exported - rejection on the ground of time limitation - Held that - the refund claim submitted subsequently with the proper authority enclosing therewith almost the same set of documents/evidences in support of the claim albeit with reduced claim, cannot be considered as barred by limitation. Rejection of refund also on the ground that sufficient evidences were not produced in establishing the fulfillment of conditions laid down under the said Notification - Held that - the Appeal is required to be remanded to the Adjudicating authority for the purpose of verification of the documents on record. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim filed within time limit under Notification No.41/2007-ST, jurisdictional authority for filing refund claim, rejection of refund claim on grounds of limitation and merit.

Analysis:
The appellant filed a refund claim for Service Tax paid on exported goods within the prescribed time limit under Notification No.41/2007-ST but faced rejection due to deficiencies and jurisdictional issues. The claim was initially returned for not being filed before the proper authority, leading to a revised submission on 08.4.2009. The appellant argued that since the claim was resubmitted to the correct authority, it should not be time-barred. Citing relevant judgments, the appellant contended that the claim should be considered valid. On the merit aspect, the appellant highlighted the need for scrutiny by the Adjudicating Authority to establish eligibility under the said Notification.

The Revenue, represented by the Ld. AR, supported the findings of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) by emphasizing that the initial submission of the refund claim to the incorrect authority rendered the revised application, filed after the prescribed period, time-barred.

Upon reviewing the records, the Member (Judicial) noted that the refund claim initially filed on 29.12.2008 included essential details but lacked some documents, which were subsequently provided on 08.4.2009. The Member agreed with the appellant's argument that the resubmitted claim with additional documents should not be considered time-barred. Additionally, the rejection of the claim on merit due to insufficient evidence was addressed by the appellant's assurance of possessing all necessary documents to establish fulfillment of conditions under the Notification. Referring to a previous Tribunal order, the Member decided to remand the case to the Adjudicating Authority for verification of documents and evidence to determine the eligibility of the refund claim. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed by way of remand for a decision on the refund claim's merit.