2021 (7) TMI 160 - AT - Service Tax

Revised refund claim - barred by time limitation or not - refund pertains to the period from 01.04.2016 to 22.08.2016 - HELD THAT - Admittedly, the denial of refund by the First Appellate Authority pertains to the period from 01.04.2016 to 22.08.2016 and it is the case of the Revenue that the refund claim for this period was clearly made after a lapse of ONE year and hence hit by limitation in terms of paragraph 3(g) of the N/N. 41/2012-ST dated 29.06.2012. This Bench of the Tribunal, in the case of M/s. Ashok Granites Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise Service Tax, Salem 2016 (7) TMI 1078 - CESTAT CHENNAI , under almost similar facts, has held that The imposition of period of limitation, without statutory amendment, through a notification, therefore, cannot prevail. The above view clearly supports the case of the assessee rather than supporting the view of the revenue - denial of refund on the ground of time-limit is not in order and therefore, the impugned order is set aside - decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the revised claim for refund is barred by limitation?

Analysis:
The appellant filed a rebate claim for Service Tax paid on Airport Services used for exporting goods. Initially claimed ?43,01,324 on 30.03.2017, later revised to ?1,17,06,030 on 21.08.2017. A Show Cause Notice was issued proposing to reject part of the claim related to Swachh Bharat Cess. Order-in-Original dated 23.03.2018 confirmed the rejection. Review Appeal by Revenue contended limitation under Notification No. 41/2012-ST. First Appellate Authority allowed the Department's appeal partially, rejecting ?27,57,930 as time-barred.

The appellant argued that the review order was not legally sound, hence the appeal. Also raised a fresh legal ground that the Reviewing Authority exceeded the Show Cause Notice's scope. The Departmental Representative supported the impugned order, citing relevant case laws. The Tribunal considered the arguments and documents presented.

The Tribunal noted that the denial of refund by the First Appellate Authority was for a period after 01.04.2016, claimed after one year, allegedly barred by limitation. Referring to a previous case, the Tribunal emphasized that imposing a limitation period for refund claims must be through legislation, not subordinate regulations. Citing another case, the Tribunal highlighted that denying refunds based on a literal interpretation of clauses would defeat the purpose of the notification.

Based on the above analysis, the Tribunal found that the denial of refund based on time-limit was incorrect. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential benefits as per law. The judgment was pronounced in open court on 01.07.2021.