2016 (4) TMI 23 - AT - Service Tax

Rejection of refund claim filed under Rule 5 read with Notification No. 5/2006-CE(NT) dated 14/3/2006 - Accumulated Cenvat credit against export of services for the period April, 2009 to June, 2009 - Time bar in terms of Section 11B of Central Excise Act and non qualification of test of input as defined under Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Held that - the date of exports are 30/4/2009, 31/5/2009 and 30/6/2009 and the refund claim was filed on 30/4/2010. In terms of Section 9 of General Clauses Act, 30/4/2009 has to be excluded therefore the period of one year is reckoned from 1/5/2009 accordingly last date of filing of refund claim is 30/4/2010 on which appellant indeed filed refund claim. Therefore there is no delay in filing refund claim and accordingly the impugned order to the extent of rejection of refund claim for an amount of ₹ 1,58,556/-, is set aside and rejection of claim of ₹ 1615/- is maintained. - Decided partly in favour of appellant

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of refund claim on the ground of time bar
2. Rejection of refund claim for not meeting the test of input as per Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed a refund claim for accumulated Cenvat credit against export of services for the period April, 2009 to June, 2009. The authorities rejected the refund claim stating it was time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as the claim was filed on 30/4/2010, beyond the one-year limitation. The appellant argued that the period of one year should be calculated from the end of the respective quarter, i.e., 30/6/2009, making the filing on 30/4/2010 within the time limit. The appellant also contended that as per the General Clauses Act, the first date of export, 30/4/2009, should be excluded for computing the one-year period, which would allow filing until 30/4/2010. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant's interpretation, considering the exclusion of the first date of export and allowed the refund claim of &8377; 1,58,556 while maintaining the rejection of &8377; 1615.

2. The second issue pertained to the rejection of a portion of the refund claim amounting to &8377; 1615 on the ground that it did not qualify as an input under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant did not challenge this rejection, and the Tribunal upheld the decision to reject this specific amount from the refund claim. The Tribunal's decision was based on a comprehensive analysis of the submissions made by both parties and a careful perusal of the records, leading to the partial allowance of the appeal with respect to the time-barred refund claim amount while maintaining the rejection of the amount not meeting the input criteria as defined under the relevant rule.

This judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI, delivered by Member (J), provides a detailed analysis of the issues surrounding the rejection of a refund claim on the grounds of time limitation and non-compliance with the input definition. The Tribunal's decision highlights the importance of accurate interpretation of statutory provisions and adherence to the prescribed timelines in claiming refunds under the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.