2018 (7) TMI 786 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of service tax paid - export of services - rejection on the ground that the refund was filed beyond statutory time limit - Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that - It is an admitted fact on record that the refund applications in respect of the period in dispute were filed by the appellants within one year from the relevant date. However, the relied upon documents in support of such refund claim applications were filed by the appellant after the limitation period prescribed under the Notification dated 18.06.2012 read with Section 11B ibid - On perusal of the statutory provisions, it reveals that the statute mandates filing of refund applications within the stipulated time frame. In the present case, since the refund applications were filed by the appellant within the prescribed statutory time limit, documents in support of such claim submitted later-on should not be considered as the date of filing of fresh application for the purpose of consideration of the limitation period. Refund allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund of service tax paid on input services due to exportation, statutory time limit for filing refund applications, relevance of filing relied upon documents after the limitation period.

Analysis:
1. The case involved appeals against the rejection of refund applications by the Commissioner (Appeals) concerning the appellant's claim for refund of service tax paid on input services used for exporting output services. The appellant filed refund applications within the statutory time limit, but the department rejected them due to the submission of relied upon documents after the prescribed period.

2. The appellant argued that electronic filing of refund applications was accepted by the CBEC and should be considered the relevant date for computation of the limitation period, citing a judgment of the Delhi High Court. On the other hand, the Revenue contended that the prescribed time limit for filing refund applications cannot be ignored, and supporting documents submitted after the limitation period should be considered for determining the period of limitation.

3. The Tribunal noted that the refund applications were filed within the statutory time frame, but the relied upon documents were submitted after the limitation period. The Tribunal held that the date of filing the applications initially should be considered for determining the limitation period, in line with the judgment of the Delhi High Court in a similar case.

4. Referring to the Delhi High Court judgment, the Tribunal emphasized that the refund claim cannot be denied solely based on procedural irregularities if the application was submitted within the prescribed time. The Tribunal concluded that the rejection of the refund applications by the authorities below was not in accordance with the statutory provisions and allowed the appeals filed by the appellants.

5. The Tribunal's decision was based on the principle that the right to refund should not be taken away due to procedural irregularities, especially when the application was submitted within the prescribed time. The impugned order rejecting the refund applications was set aside, and the appeals filed by the appellants were allowed.

This detailed analysis highlights the key arguments presented by both sides, the Tribunal's interpretation of the statutory provisions, and the reliance on relevant case law to support the decision in favor of the appellants.