9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (11) TMI 939 - AT - Service TaxRefund claim - N/N. 12/2005-ST dated 19.04.2005 - rebate of the whole of Excise duty on excisable inputs or the whole of the Service Tax on the services used of providing taxable output service which is exported - non-filing of requisite declaration with the Assistant or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise - Held that - the appellant had filed the refund and rebate claim on 1st May, 2009 which is within time and they filed declaration as required under N/N. 12/2005-ST subsequently i.e. on 7th May, 2009 i.e. before the adjudication order was passed. We find from the records that both the lower authorities have not considered the issue of eligibility of the refund claim and have rejected the refund claim only a procedural lapse. The Tribunal in the case of Manubhai & Co. Vs. CST, Ahmedabad 2010 (9) TMI 294 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD and Kothari Infotech Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat 2013 (8) TMI 800 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD considered the same issue and held that filing of declaration under N/N. 12/2005-ST is merely a procedural requirement, and if there is any delay and same can be condoned and the refund claim is to be processed if otherwise eligible. The ratio of decision of the Tribunal is squarely applicable in this case. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order, holding that the filing of declaration is a procedural requirement which is condoned and the lower authorities are directed to process the refund claim on its merits in accordance with law.
Issues:
Refund claims under Notification No. 12/2005-ST for rebate of Excise duty and Service Tax on exported services. Analysis: The appeal was filed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 100/2004 TE (ACC) dated 20.09.2004 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) Mumbai. Despite the absence of the appellant, the tribunal proceeded with the disposal of the case due to its age. The issue revolved around refund claims made by the appellant under Notification No. 12/2005-ST for the rebate of Excise duty on excisable inputs or Service Tax on exported services. The lower authorities rejected the refund claim citing a procedural lapse as the appellant had not filed the requisite declaration with the Assistant or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise. However, it was noted that the appellant had filed the refund and rebate claim within time and subsequently submitted the required declaration before the adjudication order was passed. The tribunal referred to previous decisions in similar cases where it was held that the filing of the declaration under Notification No. 12/2005-ST was a procedural requirement and any delay could be condoned, with the refund claim to be processed if found eligible. Therefore, the tribunal set aside the impugned order, emphasizing that the filing of the declaration was a procedural requirement that should be condoned, directing the lower authorities to process the refund claim based on its merits and in accordance with the law. The tribunal's decision was based on the interpretation of the procedural requirement for filing a declaration under Notification No. 12/2005-ST in the context of refund claims for Excise duty and Service Tax on exported services. The tribunal emphasized that the delay in filing the declaration could be condoned, and the refund claim should be processed if found eligible, as per previous decisions in similar cases. By setting aside the lower authorities' rejection of the refund claim solely on procedural grounds, the tribunal highlighted the importance of considering the eligibility of the claim based on its merits rather than procedural lapses. The decision provided clarity on the treatment of procedural requirements in such cases, ensuring that legitimate refund claims are not denied solely due to technicalities. The tribunal's ruling aimed to uphold the principles of fairness and justice in dealing with refund claims related to Excise duty and Service Tax on exported services, emphasizing the need to assess claims based on their substance rather than procedural formalities.
|
