9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (3) TMI 10 - AT - Service TaxRefund of service tax - service tax on Development Charges wrongly collected by SIPCOT, which is a Government of Tamil Nadu Undertaking - appellant had filed the refund claim on 29.12.2017 which is beyond 6 months as prescribed under Section 104 (3) of Finance Act - applicability of time limitation - HELD THAT - The Finance Bill received the assent of the President of India on 31.03.2017. The refund ought to have been filed within a period of 6 months of which the Finance Act, 2017 receives the assent of the President of India i.e; on or before 30.09.2017. The claimant has filed application for refund of service tax on 29.12.2017 which is beyond 6 months from 31.03.2017. It is filed within one year from the date of assent of the Finance Bill, 2017. Further, in the present case, the appellant is not at all responsible for the delay. The Section 104 of the Finance Act, 1994 does not provide as to who has to file the refund claim. When SIPCOT has collected service tax from the appellant, the refund claim can be filed by SIPCOT or the appellant. However, when the appellant has to make an application for refund, they have to get the necessary documents from SIPCOT. Only after obtaining necessary documents, the refund claim can be filed. SIPCOT has intimated the appellant vide letter dated 09.11.2017. This letter issued by SIPCOT dated 09.11.2017 has been received by the appellant only on 26.11.2017. The refund claim has been filed in the next month itself. Thus, it can be seen that there is no delay on the side of the appellant. In the decision in the case of M/S. ROOP AUTOMOTIVES LTD. VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF G.S.T. CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI OUTER COMMISSIONERATE 2019 (7) TMI 907 - CESTAT CHENNAI , the matter has been remanded to look into whether the refund has been made within a period of one year in terms of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1994. The rejection of refund is not justified - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
1. Refund claim filed beyond the prescribed time limit under Section 104 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. Interpretation of the provision regarding who can file the refund claim. 3. Impact of delay caused by the Government undertaking on the refund claim process. 4. Comparison of relevant tribunal decisions supporting both sides of the argument. Analysis: 1. The appellant, engaged in the manufacture of edible oil, filed a refund claim for service tax on Development Charges collected by a Government undertaking beyond the stipulated time limit of six months from the date of the Finance Bill, 2017 receiving the President's assent. The original authority and Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the claim based on this limitation. The appellant appealed against this rejection. 2. The appellant argued that the delay in filing the refund claim was due to the Government undertaking's delay in informing them about the necessity of filing the claim. They believed that the undertaking would handle the refund process. The appellant relied on tribunal decisions supporting their contention that the delay was not their responsibility as the provision did not specify who should file the claim when the tax was collected by a third party. 3. The respondent, supporting the impugned order, cited a decision involving a different section of the Finance Act, which was deemed inapplicable to the present case. Another decision mentioned involved a remand to ascertain if the refund was made within the specified period under a different act. 4. After considering the arguments and tribunal decisions, the Member (Judicial) found in favor of the appellant, noting that the delay was not attributable to them but rather to the Government undertaking's communication delay. The Member set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with consequential relief, if any, emphasizing the lack of justification for the refund rejection. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented by both sides, relevant legal provisions, and the ultimate decision rendered by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai.
|
