2014 (4) TMI 728 - AT - Service Tax

Denial of refund claim - Bar of limitation - Whether the refund application filed by the appellant is within time or is beyond the time limitation as provider under clause 2(e) of Notification No.9/2009-ST - Held that - appellant had paid the amount to CHA in the month of January 2010, though services were received in the month of March 2010. It is the findings, that once the amount has been paid in January 2010, the appellant should have been filed the refund claim within 6 months from that date. I find that both the lower authorities have misconstrued the entire issue. On perusal of the debit note raised by M/s. Sri Ganesh Forwarders Pvt. Ltd., CHA, on the appellant, I find that the debit note is dt. 08/03/2010 and specifically talks about discharge of service tax liability of Rs.31,303/- on the wharfage for an export done by them on behalf of the appellant on 04/03/2010. If the export of the consignment is done in the month of March 2010 and the invoice/debit note specifically records the same, in my opinion, the refund application filed by the appellant on 30/08/2010 is within the period as mentioned in Notification No.9/2009-ST dt. 03/03/2009 - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues involved: Refund claim rejection based on time limitation under Notification No.9/2009-ST for port services paid to CHA.

Analysis:
1. Issue of Time Limitation: The appeal revolved around the rejection of a refund claim amounting to Rs.31,302 paid for port services by the CHA. Both lower authorities denied the refund, citing a time limitation clause from Notification No.9/2009-ST. The appellant argued that the payment made in January 2010 was an advance for services rendered in March 2010, as evidenced by the debit note raised by the CHA on 08/03/2010. The Revenue contended that the refund application should have been filed within 6 months. The critical question was whether the refund application was within the stipulated time frame as per the notification.

2. Eligibility for Refund: It was established that the appellant, a service recipient and manufacturer exporter, was entitled to a refund of the service tax paid for availing CHA services for exports from the port. The key contention was the timing of payment vis-a-vis the services rendered, determining the applicability of the time limitation clause.

3. Interpretation of Debit Note: The appellate judge analyzed the debit note issued by the CHA, which indicated the discharge of service tax liability for an export done on 04/03/2010. The judge concluded that since the export took place in March 2010, and the debit note reflected this date, the refund application filed on 30/08/2010 fell within the permissible period specified in Notification No.9/2009-ST. The judge found that the lower authorities had misconstrued the issue, leading to an unsustainable decision.

4. Decision and Ruling: Ultimately, the appellate judge set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal in favor of the appellant. The judge emphasized that the refund application was timely filed within the prescribed period, as clarified by the details in the debit note. The ruling highlighted the importance of accurately interpreting the timeline for refund claims under relevant notifications to ensure fair treatment for taxpayers.

← Previous Next →