9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (6) TMI 166 - AT - Service TaxRefund claims of Service Tax paid in respect of input services used in the manufacture of export goods, exported during period April 08 to June 08 - claim filed on 08.09.2008 - denial on ground that claim should have been filed within 60 days from the last date of the quarter i.e. before 30.08.2008 under Notification No.41/2007-ST - Held that - Board s circular No.112/6/2009-ST, dt.12.3.2009 clarifies that consequent upon revision of limitation period, any refund claim that is filed within such revised limitation period would be admissible if it is otherwise in order. Therefore, refund claims of service tax on specified taxable services used for exports of goods made in the quarter Mar-Jun 08 could be filed till 31st Dec 08 - decided in favor of assessee.
Issues:
Refund claim rejection based on time bar under Notification No.41/2007-ST for Service Tax paid on input services used in the manufacture of export goods during April to June 2006. Analysis: The appellant filed three refund claims for Service Tax paid on input services used in the manufacture of export goods during April to June 2006, which were rejected as time-barred under Notification No.41/2007-ST. The claims were filed on 08.09.2008, after the specified deadline of 60 days from the last date of the quarter. The rejection was based on the grounds that the claims should have been filed before 30.08.2008. The impugned order rejected the claims on this basis. The appellant's counsel relied on Board circular No.112/6/2009-ST dated 12.3.2009, which clarified the issue. The circular stated that refund claims should have been filed before 31.12.2008, taking into account the amendments made by notification Nos. 32/2008-S.T. and 33/2008-S.T., extending the limitation period to six months and removing the condition of non-availment of drawback. The circular allowed refund claims for the quarter Mar-Jun 08 to be filed until 31st Dec. 08. Considering the submissions and the Board's clarification, the judge found it appropriate to allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief granted to the appellant. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in court by Mr. B.S.V. Murthy.
|
