2016 (4) TMI 65 - AT - Service Tax

Period of limitation - Rejection of refund claim of service tax paid on services received and used for export of goods manufactured during the period from January 2010 to March 2010 Refund claim filed on 07.01.2011 which was returned in order to comply with the statutory requirement and the same was resubmitted on 02.05.2011 and finally on pointing out the defects, the same was rectified and the original documents were submitted on 04.11.2011 - Held that - there has been an amendment under Section 11 B w.e.f. 26.05.1995, which stipulates that the date of filing the refund claim is the date on which claim was filed initially, so the claim has to be treated as having been filed on 07.01.2011. Therefore, by following the ratio of order in the case of Peria Karamalai Tea and Produce Co. Ltd. Vs. CCE 1996 (3) TMI 537 - SUPREME COURT , the application for refund was filed within time and the same is not barred by limitation. - Appeal allowed by way of remand

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection based on time limitation.

Analysis:
The case involves an appeal by M/s. Tab India Granites Pvt. Ltd. against the rejection of their refund claim by the Assistant Commissioner, Hosur-I Division, and subsequent affirmation by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellants manufacture granite slabs and export goods under bond. They filed a refund claim for service tax paid on specified services used for export, as per Notification No. 41/2007-ST. The claim was initially submitted on 07.01.2011, returned on 11.03.2011 for lack of documents, resubmitted on 02.05.2011, and original documents provided on 11.11.2011. The authorities rejected the claim as time-barred due to the delay in submitting original documents.

The appellant's counsel argued that the claim was filed within the one-year period specified by Notification No. 17/2009, despite the delay in submitting original documents caused by the head office's location in Jaipur. They contended that the original submission date should determine the time limit, not the resubmission date. Case laws like CCE, Delhi Vs. M/s. Arya Exports and Industries and Rubberwood India (P) Ltd. Vs. CC, Cochin were cited in support.

The respondent, however, maintained that the claim was rejected due to the absence of original documents and being filed beyond the one-year limit. They highlighted the delayed submission of original documents in November 2011 and cited precedents like CCE, Kanpur Vs. Lohia Machines Ltd. and General Manager, BSNL Vs. CCE, Guntur to support their argument.

After considering both arguments and the legal provisions, the Tribunal found that the refund application was filed within the stipulated one-year period from the date of export. Referring to the case of Rubberwood India (P) Ltd. Vs. CC, Cochin and the amendment under Section 11 B, it was held that the original filing date should determine the time limit. The Tribunal also referenced the decision in the case of Peria Karamalai Tea and Produce Co. Ltd. to support this interpretation. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, remanding the case to the original authority for a decision on merits within three months from the date of receipt of the order. The appeal was allowed by way of remand.