2013 (2) TMI 616 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim of Service Tax paid for services received and utilised for export of goods - rejection of claim as filled before an inappropriate authority - Held that - Jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise Division-V (City) Ahmedabad-II rejecting the claim rather should have forwarded this application filed for the refund by the appellant to the jurisdictional Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Service Tax Ahmedabad City, an exclusive Service Tax Commissionerate. Remit the matter back to adjudicating authority with a direction to him to forward the same to jurisdictional Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Service Tax for processing the same in accordance with the law & to treat this as a refund claim filed within limitation and decide the issue at the earliest.

Summary

Issues:
- Jurisdictional authority for filing a refund claim of Service Tax used for export of goods.

Analysis:
The appeal in this case was against the Order-in-Appeal upholding the Order-in-Original related to a refund claim of Service Tax paid for services utilized for exporting goods. The issue revolved around the jurisdictional authority for filing such a refund claim. The appellant had filed the claim before the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Division-V, Ahmedabad-II. However, a Show Cause Notice was issued for rejection, stating that the office lacked the jurisdiction to entertain such claims. Both lower authorities rejected the claim citing a circular that specified the need to file before the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Service Tax in Ahmedabad City due to its exclusive Service Tax Commissionerate.

The Tribunal observed that the Deputy Commissioner should have forwarded the refund application to the appropriate jurisdictional Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Service Tax. This step was deemed necessary to allow the assessee to present their case effectively. The Tribunal emphasized that the assessee should not face difficulties due to filing the claim before an incorrect authority. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the previous orders and remitted the matter back to the adjudicating authority with instructions to forward the claim to the correct jurisdictional Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Service Tax. The directive included processing the claim within the legal time limits and ensuring a fair decision following the principles of natural justice.

In conclusion, the appeal was disposed of with the direction to process the refund claim appropriately by involving the correct jurisdictional authority and ensuring a fair decision-making process based on the principles of natural justice.