2016 (9) TMI 582 - AT - Service Tax

Period of limitation - Refund claim - Notification No. 41/2007-ST dated 06.10.2007 - refund claim for the quarter ending for March 2008 was filed on 27.08.2008 whereas as per the period prescribed in the notification the same was required to be filed within a period of 60 days from the end of relevant quarter during which the said goods have been exported - Held that - the Tribunal being the creature of Act cannot go beyond the provisions of the Act and has to interpret the law accordingly. The said legal issue stands set at rest by many decisions of the higher courts. Some such reference can be made to the Hon ble Supreme Court s decision in the case of Miles India Ltd. Vs. Assistant Collector 1984 (4) TMI 63 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA as also in the case of CCE Vs. Doaba Co-operative Sugar Mills 1988 (8) TMI 103 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA . Therefore as such the refund admittedly being beyond the period of 60 days we find no justifiable reasons to interfere in the impugned orders of the authorities below. - Decided against the appellant

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim denial on grounds of time bar under notification 41/2007-ST dated 06.10.2007.

Analysis:
The appellant's refund claim was rejected due to being filed after the stipulated period of 60 days from the end of the relevant quarter, as required by notification 41/2007-ST. The appellant's advocate argued that the refund claim should be accompanied by documents evidencing payment of service tax, and since they had not paid the service tax to the provider, the 60-day period should start from the date of payment. The advocate cited a Tribunal decision in support of this argument.

The Revenue contended that the notification specifies a clear limitation period, and the Tribunal cannot extend it by artificial interpretation. The Tribunal noted that the notification requires filing the refund claim within 60 days from the end of the relevant quarter and only specifies the documents to be attached. The payment of service tax is a prerequisite for claiming a refund, and the appellant's failure to pay promptly does not justify extending the limitation period.

The Tribunal observed that the 60-day period was later amended to six months, but such amendments cannot be retrospective without clear legislative intent. The Tribunal also distinguished the appellant's reliance on a decision related to a different notification, emphasizing the unambiguous language of the current notification setting a 60-day period.

Additionally, the Tribunal highlighted that it cannot go beyond statutory provisions and cited Supreme Court decisions to support this principle. Given the refund claim was filed beyond the 60-day limit without justifiable reasons, the appeal was rejected, affirming the lower authorities' decision.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the denial of the refund claim based on the time bar specified in notification 41/2007-ST, emphasizing the importance of adhering to statutory provisions and the unambiguous language of the notification in setting the limitation period.