2013 (5) TMI 536 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of service tax - export of goods - notification No.41/2007-ST dated 6.10.07 - The appellants have submitted that there was gross violation of principles of natural justice in this case and therefore they are required to be given another opportunity. They have relied upon several decisions in support of the submission. - held that - the appellants took more than six months to reply to the letter written by the Assistant Commissioner rejecting the claim. In the letter several omissions in the refund claim were pointed out and therefore it is clear that the refund claim was not complete when it was filed and to make good the omissions, appellants took their own sweet time. Not only the refund claim was filed beyond 60 days as prescribed under the Notification but remedial steps were also not taken by the appellants. The Assistant Commissioner s letter informing the appellants of the requirements not fulfilled is a very detailed letter and therefore it can be treated as an appealable order. Under these circumstances, the rejection of the refund claim by the Assistant Commissioner and subsequent decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the rejection are to be sustained. - decided against the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Service tax refund claim rejection due to various discrepancies.
2. Allegation of violation of principles of natural justice.
3. Interpretation of time limit for filing refund claim under Notification No.41/2007-ST.

Analysis:
1. The appellant submitted a service tax refund claim for a specific period, but the Assistant Commissioner identified multiple discrepancies in the claim. These included missing documents related to export of goods, non-compliance with circular requirements, invoices not in the claimant's name, lack of details of service providers, and non-conformity with Service Tax Rules. Despite a delayed response from the appellant addressing some issues, the claim was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner. The subsequent appeal resulted in the impugned order upholding the rejection.

2. During the hearing, the appellant was absent, but written submissions were considered. The appellant argued a violation of natural justice principles and cited previous cases to support their claim. However, the judge found that the cited cases were related to demands for duty recovery, not refunds. Referring to a specific case, it was established that a show cause notice is not mandatory before rejecting a refund claim, as the right to appeal exists post-rejection. The judge concluded that the absence of a show cause notice did not breach natural justice principles, and the claim rejection was deemed valid.

3. Regarding the time limit for filing the refund claim under Notification No.41/2007-ST, the judge referenced cases where it was clarified that the notification itself acts as a complete code with its specified procedures. The judge noted that the appellant's delayed response to the Assistant Commissioner's letter, pointing out deficiencies in the claim, indicated that the claim was incomplete when filed. Despite exceeding the prescribed 60-day limit and failing to rectify the omissions promptly, the appellant's claim was rejected. The detailed nature of the Assistant Commissioner's letter was deemed appealable, leading to the rejection of the appeal and upholding of the claim rejection decision.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues raised, the arguments presented, and the legal interpretations applied by the judge in reaching the decision to reject the service tax refund claim.