2016 (11) TMI 158 - AT - Service Tax

Rejection of refund claim - Refund claim not filed in prescribed form - Held that - in the Order-in-Original it has been admitted that the respondent filed the refund claim along with documents. Also, the copy of the letter produced vide which the refund claim was filed and in the letter it is categorically mentioned that refund claim is being filed along with necessary copies of invoices etc - the decision in the case of Collector of C. Ex. Tiruchirapalli Vs. TVS Whirlpool Ltd. 1994 (4) TMI 82 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS relied upon - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Refund claim time-barred
- Proper format of refund claim
- Nexus between credit availed and goods exported

Refund claim time-barred:
The case involves a dispute over a refund claim filed by a Goods Transport Agency Service provider for export of goods during a specific period. The Revenue challenged the refund claim, arguing that it was time-barred and lacked correlation between various charges. The adjudicating authority initially rejected the refund claim on these grounds. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) overturned this decision, emphasizing that the refund application was filed within the prescribed time limit, as acknowledged by the department. The Commissioner relied on a previous decision to support the notion that rectifying defects post-application does not violate the limitation period. The Tribunal now addresses the Revenue's appeal against this ruling.

Proper format of refund claim:
The dispute also involves the proper format of the refund claim submission. The Revenue contended that the claim was initially filed in letter form on 30.06.2009, with the formal claim submitted later on 17.07.2009, beyond the stipulated time frame. The Appellate Tribunal referred to relevant Circulars and Manuals to assess the validity of the claim submission format. The Tribunal considered arguments from both sides regarding the admissibility of the initial letter submission and the subsequent formal claim filing. Ultimately, the Tribunal found no legal basis to sustain the Revenue's objection regarding the claim format, upholding the Commissioner's decision.

Nexus between credit availed and goods exported:
Furthermore, the issue of establishing a nexus between the credit availed and the goods exported arises in the context of the refund claim. The respondent's counsel presented authorities and documents to support the contention that the necessary correlation between credit availed and goods exported existed. Citing specific provisions and previous cases, the respondent's counsel argued for the validity of the refund claim based on this nexus. The Tribunal examined the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, ultimately affirming the Commissioner's decision due to the perceived coherence between the credit availed and the goods exported, thus dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal, after thorough consideration of the arguments, evidence, and legal precedents, upheld the Commissioner's decision regarding the refund claim, rejecting the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal found no deficiencies in the impugned order and dismissed the Revenue's challenge, emphasizing the fulfillment of conditions specified in relevant notifications and the existence of a nexus between credit availed and goods exported.