2021 (7) TMI 88 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim of service tax paid - rejection on the ground of time limitation - specified services in the course of export under the provisions of N/N. 41/2012-ST dated 29.06.2012 - HELD THAT - The provisions have to be read harmoniously. When the provisions require that only one claim has to be filed for each quarter, definitely, an assessee has to file one claim only at the end of the quarter. Thus, the limitation cannot be counted from the day of LEO or the last LEO in a quarter, as the assessee cannot file more than one refund claim for each quarter - on harmonious reading of the provisions and also the earlier Notification no.5/2006-CE (NT) read with notification no.41/2007-ST and read with notification no.41/2012-ST, the limitation has to be counted from the first day and after the end of the quarter, and accordingly, it is found that refund claim filed on 27.12.2016 is within limitation. The refund claim is rejected only on the ground of limitation, which is evident from the show cause notice dated 11.05.2017 as well as from the orders of the Court below - the Adjudicating Authority is directed to disburse the refund within a period of 45 days upon the receipt of the copy of the order with interest as per Rules for the period from 27.03.2017 (3 months ending the date of claim), till the grant of refund. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Whether the appellant filed a refund claim for service tax paid against specified services in the course of export within the prescribed time limit under Notification No.41/2012-ST dated 29.06.2012.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, engaged in the export of oil seeds and oils, filed a refund claim for service tax paid against specified services in the course of export. The claim was for ?3,94,529/- for consignments exported during the quarter of 1st October, 2015 to 31.12.2015. The last consignment was shipped on 17.12.2015 against the LET export order dated 18.12.2015. The refund claim was filed on 27.12.2016, after the expiry of one year from the date of eligibility, as per the Court below.

2. The dispute centered around the interpretation of Notification No.41/2012-ST, which stipulates that the refund claim must be filed within one year from the date of export of the goods. The proper officer of Customs determines the date of export as the date of clearance and loading of the goods for export (LEO). The lower authority rejected the claim due to the delay in filing beyond the prescribed time limit, emphasizing the strict adherence to the time limit.

3. The appellant's counsel argued that the one-year period should be calculated from the end of the quarter, as the notification allows for one claim per quarter. Referring to previous notifications, the counsel highlighted the quarterly filing requirement within 60 days from the end of the relevant quarter. The counsel contended that the limitation period should start from 1.1.2016 for the quarter ending 1.12.2015, making the claim filed on 27.12.2016 within the stipulated time limit.

4. The Authorized Representative relied on a precedent decision of a Coordinate Bench, supporting the lower authority's decision. However, the Member (Judicial) of the Tribunal interpreted the provisions harmoniously, emphasizing that only one claim can be filed per quarter. Therefore, the limitation period should be calculated from the first day after the end of the quarter. The Tribunal held that the refund claim filed on 27.12.2016 was within the limitation period, overturning the lower authority's decision based solely on limitation grounds.

5. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal and directing the Adjudicating Authority to disburse the refund within 45 days from the receipt of the order, along with interest as per rules. The decision clarified the interpretation of the time limit for filing refund claims under the relevant notifications, emphasizing the harmonious reading of the provisions to determine the limitation period accurately.