9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (12) TMI 588 - AT - Service TaxRefund claim - Quarterly sanction of refund - Held that - Notification No. 17/2009-S.T., dated 7-7-2009 does not prescribe any such condition that refund claim should be filed on quarterly basis or periodical basis. The refund claim is governed by the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, applicable to Service Tax matters and the time limit is one year from the relevant- date and the relevant date is to be counted from the date of let export order passed. In the absence of any condition in the Notification, the Circular issued by Board prescribing filing of quarterly claim cannot be considered as statutory obligation for rejecting refund. Even though the stay application is under consideration before us, we find that this is only the issue involved in this case and there is nothing more to consider. In these circumstances, we consider that the appeal itself can be disposed of at this stage. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues involved:
Refund claim related to export of Crude API Barite, inclusion of Service Tax, time limit for refund claim, applicability of Notification No. 17/2009-S.T., Circular issued by Board on filing quarterly claim. Analysis: The appellant filed an appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) order regarding the refund claim for exporting Crude API Barite. The Commissioner held that the refund claim should not have included Service Tax paid and that the goods proposed for export should not have been allowed, requiring repayment by the appellant. The main contention was the timing of the refund claim in relation to the invoicing and service provision. The Tribunal noted that the Notification No. 17/2009-S.T. does not specify a quarterly or periodical basis for filing refund claims. The refund claim falls under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, with a one-year time limit from the relevant date, counted from the let export order. The absence of a condition in the Notification renders the Board's Circular on quarterly claims non-binding for refund rejection. Despite a pending stay application, the Tribunal found this single issue to be the crux of the case, leading to the appeal's disposal. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, granting any consequential relief to the appellant.
|
