9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (7) TMI 761 - AT - Service TaxRefund claim - N/N. 41/2007-ST dated 06.10.2007 as amended - denial on the ground of time limitation - Held that - N/N. 41/2007-ST prescribed limitation of 60 days from the end of quarter which was amended by N/N. 32/2008-ST dated 18.11.2008 and extended the period of limitation to six months from the end of the quarter - the Tribunal had consistently viewed following the Circular dated 12.03.2009, that the refund claim for quarter ending March, 2008 filed under N/N. 41/2007-ST as amended by Notification No.32/2008, the limitation would be six months and effective retrospectively - In the present case, the respondent filed a refund claim on 03.07.2008 for the quarter ending on March, 2008, claim filed within time - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues:
1. Refund claim of service tax time-barred under Notification No.41/2007-ST. 2. Interpretation of Amendment Notification No.32/2008 regarding limitation period. 3. Binding nature of Board's Circular on the Department. 4. Applicability of Circular dated 12.03.2009 on refund claims. 5. Precedents supporting retrospective application of amended limitation period. Analysis: 1. The appeal pertains to a refund claim of service tax on exported goods, iron ore fines to China, filed under Notification No.41/2007-ST. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the claim as time-barred, but the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order, allowing the case to be considered on merit. 2. The issue revolves around the interpretation of Amendment Notification No.32/2008, which extended the limitation period to six months from the end of the quarter. The Revenue argued for a prospective application, while the Circular dated 12.03.2009 was cited to support a retrospective effect, allowing the refund claim filed within six months from the end of the quarter. 3. The discussion highlighted the binding nature of the Board's Circular on the Department, citing legal precedents such as Paper Products Ltd. case and CCEx., Vadodara Vs. Dhiren Chemical Industries case, emphasizing adherence to Circulars even if inconsistent with statutory provisions. 4. The Advocate for the respondents argued that the Circular dated 12.03.2009 is binding on the Revenue, supported by various case laws. The Tribunal's consistent view following the Circular favored retrospective application of the amended limitation period. 5. Precedents like Moenus Textile Pvt. Ltd. case, CCE Vs. Essar Steel Ltd. case, Jindal Stainless Ltd. case, and ACE Exports Vs. CCE case were cited to support the retrospective effect of the amended limitation period. The Tribunal dismissed Revenue's appeal in line with previous decisions and directed the Adjudicating Authority to decide the refund claim on merit. In conclusion, the judgment upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, emphasizing the binding nature of Circulars and supporting the retrospective application of the amended limitation period for refund claims. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, and the case was directed to be considered on merit.
|
