2017 (4) TMI 950 - AT - Service Tax

Rejection of refund claim - N/N. 41/2007 - rejection on account of time limitation - Held that - The appellant has confined the contest to refund claim in respect of October 2007 to December 2007 in the present appeal. If the period of six months is computed as provided in the amendment of 32/2008-ST the refund claim is well within the period of six months. The amendment dated 18.11.2008 uses the word that for the words sixty days the words six months shall be substituted - impugned order to the extent of rejecting the refund claim for quarter October 2007 to December 2007 is set aside - appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection upheld by Commissioner (Appeals) - Applicability of time limitation for filing refund claim under Notification No. 41/2007 - Retrospective application of amendment to extend filing period from sixty days to six months.

Analysis:
The appeal challenged the rejection of a refund claim by the Commissioner (Appeals) concerning service tax paid for services used in exporting goods. The original authority allowed the claim for one quarter but rejected it for two other quarters, citing a time limitation under Notification No. 41/2007. The appellant contended that an amendment to the notification extended the filing period from sixty days to six months, with retrospective application, and relied on relevant case law to support this argument.

The appellant's counsel argued that the refund claim for one quarter was not contested due to a minimal amount, while for the quarter in question, the claim was wrongly rejected as being time-barred. The counsel highlighted the retrospective nature of the amendment to Notification No. 41/2007, emphasizing that the filing was within the extended timeframe of six months. Case law, including judgments in CCE, Surat Vs. Essar Steel Limited and Bandedkar Brothers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. CCE, Goa, was referenced to support the argument for retrospective application of the amendment.

The respondent's representative reiterated the findings of the impugned order, stating that the amendment extending the filing period did not have retrospective effect as per the notifications and relevant circulars. It was argued that the authorities were correct in rejecting the claim based on the original filing date. The respondent maintained that the amendment lacked clarity on retrospective application, and therefore, the rejection was justified.

The tribunal considered the arguments presented and focused on the specific issue of the refund claim for the quarter in question. By analyzing the wording of the amendment and referring to relevant case law, including the decision in Bandedkar Brothers Vs. CCE, the tribunal concluded that the rejection of the claim was unjustified. Relying on precedents that discussed the retrospective application of similar amendments, the tribunal held in favor of the appellant. Consequently, the impugned order rejecting the refund claim for the specified quarter was set aside, and the appeal was partly allowed with appropriate reliefs.