2015 (11) TMI 659 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of CENVAT Credit - refund application under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, read with the notification no. 17/09-ST dated 7.7.2009 - Bar of limitation - Held that - The additional documents desired by the Refund Sanctioning Authority were provided by the appellant on 26.11.2012 and 14.12.2012. It is also an undisputed fact that the refund application filed on 2.11.2012 has not been returned by the Central Excise Department to the appellant as not maintainable. Since, the refund claim has been filed by the appellant on 2.11.2012 and that application has not been returned by the Department and the same has been considered for the purpose of refund of the Service Tax, the objection raised by the Revenue that the claim is barred by limitation of time is not sustainable in view of the decisions cited by the Ld. Advocate for the appellant. - since the refund application was filed in the proper format and the supporting documents were submitted subsequently, the principles decided in the case of Arya Exports (2005 (4) TMI 90 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI) squarely applies to the facts of the present case, and thus, refund claim is maintainable. - appellant is eligible for refund of Service Tax under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with the notification dated 7.72009 issued by the Central Government. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the refund claim filed by the appellant is within the stipulated time frame as per the relevant notification?
2. Whether the additional documents submitted by the appellant after the initial filing date should be considered as part of the refund application for the purpose of computation of the limitation period?

Analysis:
1. The appellant, engaged in trading of Iron Ore, filed a refund application under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, read with a specific notification, for the Service Tax paid on taxable services used in providing the output service. The notification required the refund claim to be filed within one year from the date of export of the goods. The appellant initially filed the refund application on 2.11.2012, within the prescribed time frame. The Revenue contended that since additional documents were submitted after one year from the relevant date, the refund claim was time-barred. The Adjudicating Authority held in favor of the appellant, but the Commissioner (Appeals) ruled in favor of the Revenue. The Tribunal considered the submissions and legal precedents cited by both parties. The appellant's counsel argued that the initial filing date should be considered for the limitation period calculation, relying on relevant case law. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, emphasizing that the refund application was filed within the stipulated time, and the additional documents did not alter the original filing date. Thus, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding the appellant eligible for the refund.

2. The Revenue argued that the submission of additional documents after the initial filing date should be considered as part of the refund application for calculating the limitation period. The Revenue relied on legal precedents emphasizing strict adherence to the conditions prescribed in the notification. However, the Tribunal distinguished the cited cases, noting that the appellant had filed the initial refund application within the required time frame. The Tribunal highlighted that the principles applied in the cited cases were not directly applicable to the present situation, where the initial filing complied with the notification requirements. Additionally, the Tribunal clarified that the CBEC manual cited by the Revenue was not relevant to the specific circumstances of the case. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant was entitled to the refund under the applicable rules and notification, setting aside the impugned order and ruling in favor of the appellant.