2016 (10) TMI 281 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claims - period of limitation where refund claim was filed electronically - unutilized cenvat credit on various input services - Notification No. 5/2006-CE (NT) dated 14/3/06 - time barred as the physical copies of the claims were received much later than the prescribed time limit - Held that - it is found that the findings of the lower Authorities are contrary to the Board instruction as well as trade notice issued by the Jurisdictional Commissioner. The Tribunal had occasion to examine similar issue in NSC Pearson India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CC, CE & ST, Noida 2015 (3) TMI 439 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , Transcend MT. Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CST 2015 (3) TMI 599 - CESTAT NEW DELHI and The Design Consortium vs. CCE, Delhi-II 2015 (9) TMI 534 - CESTAT NEW DELHI . It has been held that the time period should be reckoned from the date of electronic filing of the claim. It is also noted that in various decisions, the Tribunal as well as Hon ble High Court held that if any documents were called for or omitted to be filed alongwith the original claim the filing of all documents later cannot be considered for reckoning the date for calculating time bar. It is the date of filing of initial claim which is to be considered as relevant date. We have noted that the appellants have filed the claim for refund as well as 11 supporting documents alongwith the claim electronically. Hence, it cannot be alleged that the appellants submitted only a simple claim without any supporting document alongwith the claim. They later submitted in physical form all these documents with Jurisdictional officer. Therefore, we find no merit in the findings of the lower Authorities regarding time bar of the claim. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and direct the Original Authority to process the claim for sanction considering the date of electronic filing as the relevant date. - Decided in favour of appellant

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim time bar based on physical submission date.

Analysis:
The appeal challenged the order rejecting refund claims on the grounds of being time-barred due to late physical submission of documents. The Original Authority found the claims eligible on merit but rejected them based on timing. The appellants filed claims electronically within the prescribed time, with physical documents submitted later. Lower Authorities considered physical submission date for time bar, despite no legal provision equating electronic with physical filing. Trade notice and Circular encouraged electronic filing to reduce paperwork and interface with the Department. Previous cases held time should be reckoned from electronic filing date. Tribunal and High Court decisions emphasized the importance of initial claim filing date for time calculation. The appellants submitted 11 supporting documents electronically with the claim, later providing physical copies to the Jurisdictional officer. The Tribunal found no merit in the lower Authorities' time bar decision, setting aside the order and directing the Original Authority to process the claim based on the electronic filing date. The appeal was allowed accordingly.