2016 (10) TMI 916 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - export of services - merchant exporter of Mobile Phone - CHA services - Held that - The para 3 of the notification clearly lays down that the refund shall be filed within one year from the date of export of the goods and explanation attached to the said condition clearly lays down that the date of export shall be the date on which the proper officer of the Customs makes an order permitting clearance of the goods - As regards the condition prescribed in para 3(j) of the notification no. 52/2011, the same is to the effect that for the purpose of claiming refund the exporter is required to be registered with the Export Promotion Council sponsored by Ministry of Commerce or Ministry of Textile. The said condition is a substantive condition for allowing refund claim and being a part of the notification cannot be ignored. Reliance placed on the decision of Golden Dew Tea Factory Vs. CCE Coimbatore 2006 (11) TMI 530 - CESTAT, CHENNAI where it was held that while interpreting a notification number 41/99-CE that conditions of the notification are mandatory and not mere procedural and hence non fulfillment of the same is not condonable. There is no rule for any intendment while interpreting the notification and regard must be had to the clear meaning of the words used therein. I find that appellant have not admittedly fulfilled the condition 3(j) of the notification which is unambiguous and clear in language. Further, the appellant have not adhered to the time factor which is a part of notification itself and cannot be given a go by. Refund cannot be allowed - appeal disposed off - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim for service tax paid on input services utilized for the export of goods - Time limitation for filing refund claim - Condition of being registered with Export Promotion Council for claiming refund.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a Merchant Exporter, filed refund claims for service tax paid on input services used for exporting goods. The claims were made under notification No. 52/2011-ST. The adjudicating authority rejected the claims for the period of February 2012 due to late filing beyond the specified date. Additionally, the authority found the appellant had not fulfilled the conditions as per para 3(j) of the notification.

2. Aggrieved by the decision, the appellant appealed to the Commissioner (A) who upheld the rejection based on the time limitation and non-fulfillment of conditions, specifically mentioning the requirement of being registered with the Export Promotion Council as per notification number 52/2011.

3. During the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, the appellant argued that the condition of being registered with the Export Promotion Council should not be strictly enforced, citing the substantive nature of paras 2 & 3 of the notification. However, the Tribunal found no merit in this argument.

4. The Tribunal emphasized that para 3 of the notification clearly states that refund claims must be filed within one year from the date of export, which in this case was not adhered to by the appellant. The Tribunal held that the time limitation provided in the notification cannot be diluted, and late-filed refunds cannot be accepted.

5. Regarding the condition in para 3(j) of the notification, which mandates registration with the Export Promotion Council, the Tribunal reiterated the mandatory nature of this requirement. Citing precedents, the Tribunal emphasized that conditions in notifications are substantive and must be strictly followed without room for interpretation.

6. Applying the principles from previous decisions, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant failed to meet the conditions specified in the notification. The non-registration with the Export Promotion Council and the late filing of the refund claim were deemed as valid reasons for rejecting the appeal.

7. Ultimately, the Tribunal found no justifiable reasons to overturn the decisions of the lower authorities and rejected the appeal. The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to the clear conditions outlined in notifications without any leniency.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues of time limitation for filing refund claims and the mandatory condition of being registered with the Export Promotion Council for claiming refunds under the specified notification.