2015 (3) TMI 439 - AT - Service Tax

Denial of refund claim - Bar of limitation - claims were rejected by the original authority on the ground that the condition No. 2 of the Notification No. 05/2006-CE was not fulfilled and accordingly the claims were time barred - Held that - these claims were submitted by them electronically on 13.12.2010. I find that the Range superintendent vide his letter dated 13.05.2011 asked the appellant to submit the hard copy of the refund claim in office of the Central Excise, Division Noida. In response to that letter the claims were submitted by the appellants in the Divisional Office on 25.08.2011. The fact of submission of the claim on 13.12.2010, has been admitted by the Range Superintendent in his letter dated 13.05.2011. Since the appellants have submitted the claim electronically in pursuance of Board Circular as well as the trade notices, it will be in interest of justice not to treat the claims as time barred as the refund claims were electronically submitted on 13.12.2010. I therefore set aside the Order-in-Appeal and hold that claims cannot be rejected as time barred in view of the fact that the claims were submitted electronically within time. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the refund claims filed by the appellants are time-barred or not.

Analysis:
The case involved M/s. NCS Pearson India Pvt. Ltd. appealing against the rejection of their refund claims by the original authority and Commissioner (Appeals). The claims, amounting to specific figures, were filed under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, for unutilized credit in the Cenvat Credit account for distinct periods. The rejection was based on the ground that a specific condition of Notification No. 05/2006-CE was not fulfilled, rendering the claims time-barred. The appellants contended that they electronically filed the refund claims on a particular date in accordance with circulars and trade notices issued by the authorities. The Range Superintendent later requested the hard copy submission, which was done on a different date. The fact of electronic submission was acknowledged by the Range Superintendent in a letter. The Tribunal noted this sequence of events and held that since the claims were electronically submitted within the stipulated time, they should not be considered time-barred. Consequently, the Order-in-Appeal was set aside, and the claims were allowed.

This judgment primarily revolved around the interpretation of the timeliness of refund claims filed by the appellants. The Tribunal analyzed the sequence of events, including electronic submission and subsequent hard copy submission, to determine the validity of the claims. The pivotal factor was the acknowledgment by the Range Superintendent of the electronic submission date, which played a crucial role in the decision. The Tribunal emphasized that the electronic submission, in compliance with relevant circulars and trade notices, should be considered the starting point for assessing the timeliness of the claims. By setting aside the Order-in-Appeal and allowing the appeals, the Tribunal established that the electronic submission date was the key determinant in this case, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellants.