2019 (8) TMI 1187 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of service tax - appellant had filed a refund claim after one year from the date of let export order in respect of exported goods - rejection of refund on the ground of time limitation - N/N. 41/2012-ST. - HELD THAT - The relavant date to be considered for one year for filing refund claim under Notification No. 41/2012-ST is the date of let export order . The entire benefit of refund accrues to the appellant only from the notification but for which no refund is admissible in this case. Any notification, being an exception to the general rule, must be strictly construed. If the notification prescribes any time limit it must be complied with. It is not open to this Bench to change the notification to enlarge, constrict or otherwise modify it. The vires of the notification has not been questioned or tested nor has any portion of it been declared ultra vires. In this case, the refund application was filed more than one year after the export. Accordingly, the refund is not admissible as per the Notification No. 41/2012-ST. Refund cannot be allowed - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Entitlement to refund under Notification No. 41/2012-ST
- Timeliness of filing refund claim
- Rejection of refund amount based on late filing
- Rejection of refund amount due to short receipt of sale proceeds

Entitlement to Refund under Notification No. 41/2012-ST:
The case involved an exporter seeking a refund of service tax paid on services used for exporting goods classified under Central Excise Tariff Heading 251110. The appellant filed a refund claim for service tax paid under Notification No. 41/2012-ST. The First Appellate Authority partly allowed the refund but rejected a specific amount of ?25,87,200 based on the claim being filed beyond the time limit specified in the notification.

Timeliness of Filing Refund Claim:
The appellant had filed a refund claim after one year from the date of the Let Export Order (LEO) for the exported goods. The issue revolved around whether the claim was within the one-year period stipulated by the notification. The appellant relied on a tribunal judgment for the interpretation of the time limit, arguing that it should be reckoned from the date of shipment, not the date of the LEO. However, the adjudicating authority found that the appellant did not adhere to the conditions specified in the notification, which required the claim to be filed within one year from the date of export. The authority held that there was no provision to condone the late filing of the claim, leading to the rejection of the ?25,87,200 refund.

Rejection of Refund Amount Based on Late Filing:
The First Appellate Authority rejected the refund claim of ?25,87,200 on the grounds of late filing beyond the specified time limit. The authority emphasized that the appellant did not provide relevant data regarding the date of shipments for the 13 shipping bills in question. As a result, it was not possible to verify if the claims were submitted within the one-year period from the date of shipments, as required by the notification. Consequently, the rejection of this amount was upheld.

Rejection of Refund Amount Due to Short Receipt of Sale Proceeds:
Another aspect of the case involved a refund claim of ?3,01,365, which was initially rejected due to a perceived short receipt of sale proceeds for a specific shipping bill. The appellant contested this rejection, providing evidence that there was no short receipt of sale proceeds. Upon verification of Bank Realization Certificates (BRCs) for the relevant shipping bill, the authority found no discrepancy. Consequently, the authority allowed the refund of ?3,01,365 based on the appellant's submission of documentary evidence supporting the full realization of the sale proceeds.

In conclusion, the judgment upheld the rejection of the ?25,87,200 refund claim due to late filing beyond the time limit specified in Notification No. 41/2012-ST. The decision was based on the strict interpretation of the notification's conditions, emphasizing compliance with the prescribed time limit. Conversely, the refund of ?3,01,365 was allowed, as the appellant provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate the full realization of sale proceeds, meeting the conditions for refund eligibility.