2018 (3) TMI 23 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of service tax paid on the services rendered in the SEZ area - rejection on the ground that they were filed beyond the period of limitation as also on the ground that they were not required for authorized operations - Held that - the delay in fling refund claims before the authorities is 14 96 days from the date of payment of Service Tax - all these refund claims after 1.3.2011 on this date N/N. 17/2011-ST came into existence and superseded N/N. 9/2009-ST. - all these claims are within time limit and the matter has to be remitted back to he Adjudicating Authority to decide the case afresh - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Appeals against rejection of refund claims based on limitation and authorized operations in SEZ area.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to multiple appeals against the rejection of refund claims by the assessee appellant M/s Chemoil Adani Pvt Ltd concerning Service Tax paid by service providers for services rendered in SEZ area authorized operations. The primary ground for the rejection was that the claims were filed beyond the limitation period and were not required for authorized operations. The Notification No. 9/2009-ST dated 3.3.2009 allowed SEZ area assessees to claim exemption or refund for Service Tax paid by service providers for authorized operations. This notification specified a 6-month time limit for filing refund claims, which was later extended to one year by Notification No. 17/2011-ST dated 1.3.2011.

The Adjudicating Authority passed orders on these claims in 2012, under the influence of Notification No. 17/2011-ST. The counsel argued that the time limit for filing should be determined based on the later notification, citing a relevant Tribunal case. The Tribunal concurred, emphasizing that the time limit under Notification dated 1-3-2011 applied to claims pending on that date. The Tribunal highlighted the authority's power to condone delays and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication based on the merits of the claim.

The Tribunal, following the above precedent, held that the claims were within the time limit and needed reconsideration by the Adjudicating Authority. The Revenue also appealed against the decision, objecting to the remand to the Adjudicating Authority. The Tribunal directed the Adjudicating Authority to reassess the claims on their merits and remand proceedings as necessary. Ultimately, all appeals were disposed of in accordance with the Tribunal's findings.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the rejection of refund claims based on limitation and operational requirements in SEZ areas. It clarified the application of time limits under different notifications, emphasizing the need for a fresh adjudication based on the merits of the claims. The Tribunal's decision highlighted the authority's power to condone delays and the proper procedure for reconsideration of claims, ensuring a comprehensive review of the issues involved.