2009 (7) TMI 485 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of Service Tax- In this case Tri.-Ahmd. held that claim filed before wrong authority within limitation cannot be held as filed beyond limitation when both authorities working under same department, thus no infirmity in the view adopted by Commissioner (Appeals), the Revenue s appeal is accordingly rejected.

Summary

Issues:
1. Dispute over refund of service tax as per Notification No. 41/2007-S.T.
2. Correct authority for filing refund claim under Central Excise jurisdiction.

Analysis:
1. The dispute in the present appeal revolves around the refund of service tax under Notification No. 41/2007-S.T., dated 6-10-2007, which mandates filing the refund claim within 60 days. The Commissioner (Appeals) acknowledged that the appellant filed the refund claim within the stipulated time, meeting the conditions of the notification. The Commissioner further referred to Circular No. 101/04/2008, clarifying the procedure for filing refund claims. Despite the initial claim being returned by the department with directions to file with the appropriate authority, the appellant re-filed the claim within the time limit. Consequently, the Commissioner (Appeals) found no violation of the notification's conditions and granted the benefit to the assessee.

2. The key issue raised by the Revenue was the filing of the refund claim with the Deputy Commissioner of service tax instead of the correct authority under Central Excise jurisdiction. However, it was noted that the claim was initially filed within the 60-day period as required by the notification. The Appellate Tribunal emphasized that filing with the wrong authority, albeit within the limitation period, does not render the claim time-barred, especially when both authorities belong to the same department. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, rejecting the Revenue's appeal on the grounds that the claim was validly filed within the prescribed time limit and that the jurisdictional issue did not affect the timeliness of the claim.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal affirmed the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the refund of service tax under Notification No. 41/2007-S.T. The Tribunal emphasized that the timely filing of the claim within the 60-day period was crucial, and the jurisdictional aspect did not invalidate the claim. The judgment underscores the importance of compliance with procedural requirements while interpreting and applying tax refund regulations.