2017 (9) TMI 360 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - the subject refund claims of the appellant have been filed beyond the period of one year from the date of export of the relevant goods - rejection on the ground of time limitation - Held that - clause 2(f) of the N/N. 17/09-ST clarifies that the refund claim is to be filed within one year from the date of export of the goods, and in the face of the Explanation that for this purpose date of export shall be the date on which the proper officer of the Customs make an order permitting clearance and loading of the said goods for exportation under Section 51 of the Customs Act, 1962, the subject claim of refund appears to be not admissible - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claims rejection on the ground of limitation based on the date of export of goods.

Analysis:
The appeals were filed against the rejection of refund claims by M/s Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd. for the periods of October 2009 to December 2009 and January 2010 to March 2010, amounting to specific sums. The issue revolved around the time limit for filing refund claims, with the appellant arguing for a one-year period from the payment of service tax, while the revenue department contended that the time limit should be calculated from the date of export of goods as per Notification 17/2009-ST. The appellant highlighted challenges in paying tax without receiving invoices promptly, leading to delays in service tax payment. The revenue department cited specific provisions of the notification and tribunal decisions to support their stance on the time limit calculation.

The tribunal, after considering the submissions from both sides, found that the refund claims were indeed filed beyond the one-year period from the date of export of goods as stipulated in the notification. Despite the appellant's argument regarding the payment of service tax, the tribunal emphasized the clear provision in the notification regarding the time limit calculation based on the date of export. The tribunal also noted that the specific clause in the notification did not extend the time limit to one year from the actual payment of service tax. Therefore, the tribunal upheld the rejection of the refund claims, stating that both appeals lacked merit for granting relief to the appellant.

In conclusion, the tribunal sustained the impugned order, rejecting both appeals on the grounds of being without merits. The judgment was pronounced on 26.07.2017 by Mr. Ashok K. Arya.