2019 (12) TMI 1091 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of delay in filing refund claim - Refund of service tax - time limitation - refund claim has been filed beyond the period of one year stipulated in the Notification No 17/2011 - HELD THAT - In similar cases with respect to Exemption Notification No 7/2011 available to SEZ developers, this Bench had taken a liberal view and condoned the delay as was available under the Exemption Notification - reliance can be placed in the case of HBL POWER SYSTEMS LTD. VERSUS CCCE ST, VISAKHAPATNAM-II 2018 (10) TMI 168 - CESTAT HYDERABAD where the delay in filing refund claims by the SEZ unit was condoned by this Bench. The delay in filing the refund claim is condoned and the original authority is directed to sanction refund claim to the extent admissible on merits - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claim filed beyond the stipulated time limit under Notification No. 17/2011.
2. Discretion of Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner to condone delay in filing refund claim.
3. Applicability of case laws supporting rejection of refund claim beyond the limitation period.
4. Liberal view in condoning delay under Exemption Notification No. 7/2011 for SEZ developers.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, an SEZ developer, filed a refund claim for service tax paid on certain services under Notification No. 17/2011. The adjudicating authority found them eligible for a refund of a lesser amount and rejected the claim due to filing beyond the one-year period stipulated in the notification.

2. The appellant contended that the delay in filing was due to setbacks faced by their factory and being referred to BIFR, which hindered their active pursuit of service tax matters. They argued that the Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner had the discretion to condone the delay, citing previous cases where delays were condoned by the Tribunal.

3. The Respondent supported the rejection of the refund claim, emphasizing that sufficient grounds must be provided for condoning delays beyond the prescribed time limit. They relied on case laws stating that refund claims filed beyond the limitation period should be rejected.

4. The Tribunal considered the arguments and past decisions, noting that the Exemption Notification No. 7/2011 for SEZ developers allowed for a liberal view in condoning delays. The Tribunal distinguished cases related to other refund claims under different statutes that did not provide for condonation of delay. Ultimately, considering the appellant's circumstances during the relevant period, the Tribunal condoned the delay and directed the original authority to sanction the refund claim to the extent admissible on merits.