2018 (5) TMI 769 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of service tax paid - rejection on the ground of nexus - N/N. 17/09-ST dated 07.07.2009 - Held that - N/N. 17/09-ST dated 07.07.2009 provides that the claim for refund shall be filed within one year from the date of exportation of the goods - In this case, it is an admitted fact on record that the refund applications were filed by the appellant beyond the stipulated period of one year i.e. date of export of the goods - refund rightly rejected - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Rejection of refund claim on the ground of limitation under Notification No.17/09-ST dated 07.07.2009.

Analysis:
The judgment concerns the rejection of a refund claim based on the limitation period specified in Notification No.17/09-ST dated 07.07.2009. The appellant had filed refund applications for Service tax paid on input services used for exporting goods, but the applications were submitted after one year from the date of export. The authorities rejected the applications citing them as time-barred under clause 2 (f) of the said Notification.

The appellant argued that the applications were not time-barred as they were filed within one year from the period of July to September 2009, as per the provisions of the Notification. The appellant relied on previous tribunal decisions to support their stance. However, the Revenue contended that the refund claims were clearly required to be filed within one year from the date of export, as specified in the Notification, leaving no room for ambiguity.

Upon reviewing the case, it was established that the refund applications were indeed filed beyond the stipulated one-year period from the date of export, as mandated by the Notification. The rejection of the applications by the authorities was deemed justified and in line with the conditions set forth in the Notification. The argument put forth by the appellant regarding quarterly filing was dismissed as the Notification explicitly outlined the timeframe for lodging refund claims. The tribunal distinguished the cited cases from the present situation, emphasizing that the period of limitation under the Notification was not disputed in those instances.

Consequently, the tribunal found no merit in the appeals filed by the appellant and proceeded to dismiss them accordingly. The judgment reaffirms the importance of adhering to the specified timeframes for filing refund claims as outlined in the relevant Notifications, emphasizing the need for strict compliance with such provisions to avoid rejection on grounds of limitation.