2018 (11) TMI 721 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - rejection on the ground that the refund applications were filed beyond the prescribe time limit - N/N. 41/2007-ST dated 16/10/2007 - Held that - Considering the scope of notification dated 16/10/2007, this Tribunal in the case of Chandrashekhar Exports 2015 (11) TMI 1112 - CESTAT MUMBAI has held that even if the refund claim was filed beyond the stipulated period, the benefit cannot be denied, once it is substantiated that the mandatory requirements of the notification have been duly complied with. Non-compliance of the condition regarding reflection of commission amount in the shipping bill - Held that - Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of AGB Shipyard Ltd. 2013 (9) TMI 741 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT has held that non-mentioning of the commission made in the shipping bill is a technical error and since such amount has been paid by the assessee, the refund benefit cannot be denied. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Rejection of refund claims under Notification No.41/2007-ST dated 16/10/2007, as amended, due to late filing and missing commission amount on shipping bills.

Analysis:
The dispute revolved around the denial of refund benefits based on late filing of refund applications and failure to show the commission amount on two shipping bills as required by the notification. The appellant argued that previous tribunal decisions and a judgment by the Gujarat High Court supported their position that the issues raised in the present dispute were no longer open for debate.

Regarding the late filing of refund claims, the Tribunal referred to the economic policy that exported goods or services should not be taxed. They highlighted a notification allowing refunds for service tax paid on input services used for exporting output services. The Tribunal cited precedents to establish that even if the refund claim was filed after the stipulated period, as long as the mandatory requirements of the notification were met, the benefit could not be denied.

In a specific case mentioned, the Tribunal clarified that the appellant's refund claims fell within the amended period specified in the notification, making them eligible for the refund benefits subject to fulfilling other conditions. The Tribunal emphasized that procedural amendments should be applied retrospectively if the procedures were satisfied, as supported by previous judgments and circulars.

Addressing the issue of the missing commission amount in the shipping bills, the Tribunal relied on a judgment by the Gujarat High Court, stating that the absence of this detail was a technical error. As the commission had been paid by the assessee, denying the refund benefit on this basis was deemed inappropriate.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found no merit in the impugned order and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellants, granting them the consequential benefits of refund. The decision was based on the established legal principles and precedents cited during the proceedings.