2014 (1) TMI 412 - AT - Service Tax

Rejection of refund claim - Bar of limitation - Mandap Keeper services - Authority to collect service tax - Notification No. 17/2009-ST dated 07/07/2009 - Held that - export order under Section 51 was given by the Customs officer on 04/01/2009 and the one year period expired on 03/01/2010. The appellant filed the refund application initially on 05/10/2010 for a sum of Rs. 28,685/- and the same was withdrawn and a revised application was filed for a sum of Rs. 99,252/- on 18/01/2010. The lower authorities rejected both the claims as time barred. As seen from the records, the refund claims should have been filed on or before 03/01/2010. Inasmuch as the claim has been filed belatedly, the claim is liable to be rejected in terms of the provisions of the aforesaid notification. All refund claims under the Customs Act, Central Excise Act or Service Tax law have to be considered and granted in terms of the provisions of the said laws and the provisions of general law of limitation will not apply. The provisions which would apply in respect of the refund claim is Section 11B of the Central Excise Act read with Notification No. 17/2009-ST dated 07/07/2009 which lays down a time limit of one year from the date of export. Inasmuch as the claim has been filed belatedly, the claim is time-barred. Accordingly, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claim filed after the prescribed time limit.
2. Applicability of time limit for claiming refund.
3. Authority to collect service tax.
4. Interpretation of notification No. 17/2009-ST.

Analysis:
The judgment by Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI involved an appeal against the rejection of a refund claim by the lower appellate authority as time-barred due to being filed after one year from the date of export. The appellant contended that the service tax claim pertained to Mandap Keeper services, where charges for food and beverages were separate, implying no service tax should be levied. The appellant argued that the amount paid without authority should be refunded, despite the delay in filing the claim.

The Tribunal noted that the refund claim was filed under notification No. 17/2009-ST, which required claims to be submitted within one year from the date of export. The Customs officer had issued the let export order on 04/01/2009, making the deadline for filing the claim 03/01/2010. However, the appellant submitted the claim on 05/10/2010 initially and later revised it on 18/01/2010. The lower authorities rejected both claims as time-barred, as they were filed after the deadline.

The Tribunal emphasized that all refund claims must adhere to the provisions of relevant laws, such as the Central Excise Act and Service Tax law, and not be subject to general limitation laws. While the appellant argued for a refund without time constraints due to the absence of legal authority for tax payment, the Tribunal held that the specific time limit of one year from the date of export specified in notification No. 17/2009-ST must be followed. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the rejection of the refund claim as time-barred, dismissing the appeal for lacking merit.