2017 (12) TMI 1147 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - taxable service used/utilised for export of the goods - denial on the ground of time limitation - Held that - It is apparent from the records that the refund claim applications were not filed within the prescribed time limit of one year provided under the N/N. 41/2012 dated 29.6.2012. Since, the said notification is conditional and the benefit contained therein are available, subject to fulfilment of the conditions itemised therein, the assessee has to strictly comply with the requirement contained therein for availing the benefit of refund of service tax. Thus, the time limit prescribed in the notification cannot be considered as procedural in nature - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim under Notification No.41/2012-ST dated 29.6.2012; Time limit for filing refund application; Procedural compliance for availing refund.

Analysis:
The case involved a merchant exporter who filed a refund application amounting to &8377; 42,12,189/- under Notification No.41/2012-ST for service tax paid on taxable services used for exporting goods. The adjudicating authority approved a refund of &8377; 37,73,065/- but rejected the balance amount of &8377; 4,39,124/- due to the application not being filed within the prescribed one-year time frame. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to the appeal.

The appellant argued that since Section 93 of the Finance Act, 1994, under which the notification was issued, does not explicitly mention a time limit for claiming refunds, the notification cannot impose such a restriction. They contended that the time limit was procedural and compliance with statutory requirements should suffice. The appellant cited previous Tribunal decisions to support their stance.

On the contrary, the Revenue representative supported the original decision. The Tribunal, after considering both sides, found that the refund claims for certain quarters were indeed filed after the one-year limit specified in the notification. The Tribunal emphasized that the notification's conditions, including the time limit, must be strictly followed to avail of the refund benefits. It noted that the relied-upon Tribunal decisions did not address the specific limitation aspect of the 2012 notification. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, stating that the time limit in the notification was not procedural but a substantive condition.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, stating that the appellant failed to comply with the time limit set in Notification No.41/2012-ST dated 29.6.2012, which was deemed a substantive requirement for claiming the refund. The Tribunal found no grounds to overturn the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision based on a proper analysis of the notification.