2014 (4) TMI 251 - AT - Service Tax

Denial of refund claim - Bar of limitation - whether the refund claim filed by the appellant is barred by limitation or not - Held that - date of filing the refund claim is within one year from the date of export. Admittedly, in this case the export took place during the period July 2008 to September 2008. The refund claim has been filed on 30.03.2009, therefore I hold that the refund claim is within time - Following decision of assessee s own p0revious case 2014 (1) TMI 1508 - CESTAT MUMBAI - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the refund claim is time-barred?
2. Whether the appellant provided evidence of co-relation between exported goods and services availed?
3. Whether the lower authorities exceeded the scope of the show-cause notice?

Analysis:

Issue 1: Time-barred Refund Claim
The appellant filed a refund claim for service tax paid to an export commission agent for the quarter July 2008 to September 2008. The claim was rejected on the grounds of being time-barred and lack of evidence of co-relation between export goods and services availed. The appellant argued that the claim was filed within the prescribed time limit under Notification No. 17/09 dated 07.07.2009, which allows claims within one year from the date of export. The Tribunal previously held in their own case that the filing date was within the timeframe. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, stating that the claim filed on 30.03.2009, after exports during July 2008 to September 2008, was within the permissible time limit.

Issue 2: Evidence of Co-Relation
The lower authorities rejected the refund claim citing the necessity of co-relation between export goods and services availed as per Notification 41/07 dated 06.10.2007. The appellant failed to provide this evidence. However, the Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) acknowledged that the adjudication order exceeded the scope of the show-cause notice. The Tribunal held that the lower authorities erred in demanding the claim to be filed in a prescribed format, as it was not part of the original notice. Citing the principle that no findings can go beyond the show-cause notice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal with consequential relief.

Issue 3: Exceeding Scope of Show-Cause Notice
The Tribunal emphasized that the findings beyond the scope of the show-cause notice, including the demand for a prescribed format, were unsustainable. Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Ballarpur Industries Ltd., the Tribunal reiterated that the show-cause notice forms the foundation of the matter, and any allegations or findings beyond its scope are not valid. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's decision on each matter, ensuring a comprehensive understanding of the legal aspects involved.