2017 (6) TMI 909 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - GTA services - denial on the ground that the appellant did not file complete documents viz. Documents evidencing export of the said goods and documents evidencing payment of service tax on the specified service - denial also on the ground of time bar - Held that - the refund in this case has been claimed under N/N. 41/07-ST dt.6.10.2007, which is a self-contained notification to grant refunds of Service Tax to exporters. There is express provision made in the clause (2) (e) and proviso thereof in the notification that the claim has to be filed within sixty days of the order for export made under Section 51 of the CA, 1962. There is nothing in the language of the Notification to indicate or imply the application of time limit of Section 11B of CEA, 1944 - the Commissioner (Appeals) has taken the right decision to apply the time limit as prescribed in the N/N. 41/07-ST. Refund claim - time limitation - Held that - the adjudicating authority needs to reexamine the refund claim and appellant s contentions afresh on the basis of documents of the CHA and shipping bills to establish connection between the two as has been done for the refund already sanctioned - matter on remand. Appeal disposed off - part matter decided against appellant and part matter on remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claim rejection based on time limitation under Notification No.41/2007-ST.
2. Refund rejection due to insufficient documentation.

Issue no. (i):
The case involved a dispute over the rejection of a refund claim of ?19,628 and ?38,772 under Notification No.41/2007-ST. The appellant argued that the time limit for filing the claim should be extended to one year based on a subsequent notification. However, the Tribunal held that the time limit specified in the original notification must be adhered to. The Tribunal emphasized that the notification was self-contained and did not imply the application of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. It referenced previous judgments to support its stance, highlighting that applying Section 11B would render certain clauses redundant. The Tribunal also differentiated the case from precedents where retrospective notifications were involved. Ultimately, it upheld the Commissioner's decision on the time limit issue.

Issue no. (ii):
Regarding the rejection of the ?38,772 refund due to insufficient documentation, the Tribunal noted that the invoices provided were not from the service provider directly. The appellant argued that the invoices were from a Customs House Agent (CHA) and should be considered valid. The Tribunal directed the adjudicating authority to reexamine the refund claim based on the CHA's documents and shipping bills to establish the connection between them. It emphasized the need for a fresh adjudication to ensure a fair opportunity for the appellant to present their case adequately.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the rejection of the ?19,628 refund based on time limitation but remanded the issue of the ?38,772 refund back to the adjudicating authority for a thorough reevaluation. The appellant was granted the opportunity to present their case effectively during the fresh adjudication process.