2014 (6) TMI 167 - AT - Service Tax

Denial of refund claim - Resubmission of claim - Bar of limitation - whether resubmission of the refund claim by the appellant would be hit by limitation as provided under Notification No.41/2007-ST as amended by Notification No.32/2008-ST - Held that - appellant had filed refund claim on 31/03/2009 on the last day when the refund claim needs to be filed for the period from July 2008-September 2008. Revenue has not challenged the refund claim on merits before the first appellate authority. This would mean that the appellants are eligible for the refund of the amount of service tax paid by them and claimed by them. On perusal of the clause 2(f), the said clause talks about submission of refund claim accompanied by the documents evidencing (i) export of goods, (ii) payment of service tax on the specified services for which claim for refund of service tax and (iii) wherever applicable, a copy of the written agreement entered into by the exporter with the buyer of the goods. The only proof, which the appellant could not produce or submit when they filed refund claim was in respect of payment of service tax. Subsequently it has been rectified and informed that the appellant had been able to submit proof of payment of service tax along with bank realization certificate, I find that the view taken by the first appellate authority is incorrect, unsustainable as substantive benefit should not be denied to an assessee if conditions are fullfilled. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Refund claim filed beyond the stipulated period
- Compliance with conditions for refund claim
- Authority to return refund claim

Analysis:
1. Refund claim filed beyond the stipulated period:
The case involved a dispute regarding the refund claim filed by the appellant for service tax paid on commission charges to foreign agents for services received in respect of exports made during a specific quarter. The Revenue challenged the refund claim on the grounds that it was filed beyond the period specified in the relevant notification. However, it was noted that the appellant had initially filed the claim on the last day required, and subsequently resubmitted it after addressing deficiencies pointed out by the Revenue. The Tribunal observed that the resubmission of the claim was within a reasonable time frame and should not be considered as being hit by the limitation clause in the notification.

2. Compliance with conditions for refund claim:
The Tribunal examined the conditions specified in the relevant notification for filing a refund claim, which required submission of documents evidencing export of goods, payment of service tax, and any relevant agreements. It was noted that the appellant had complied with most of the conditions, with the only deficiency being the initial lack of proof of payment of service tax. However, the appellant rectified this deficiency by subsequently submitting the required documents, including the proof of payment of service tax. The Tribunal emphasized that substantive benefits should not be denied to an assessee if the conditions are fulfilled, and in this case, the appellant had met the necessary requirements for the refund claim.

3. Authority to return refund claim:
The issue of whether the Superintendent had the authority to return the refund claim was also raised during the proceedings. The Tribunal opined that instead of outright returning the claim, the authorities could have requested the appellant to provide the missing documents, such as the bank realization certificate and proof of service tax payment. By doing so, the appellant could have rectified the deficiencies within the stipulated time frame, and the refund claim would have been considered valid. The Tribunal held that the lower authorities should have taken a more facilitative approach in assisting the appellant to fulfill the necessary requirements for the refund claim.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, emphasizing that the resubmission of the refund claim by the appellant was not hit by the limitation clause, as the appellant had ultimately complied with the conditions for the refund claim, including providing the required documents within a reasonable time frame.