9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (4) TMI 905 - AT - Service TaxRefund claim - time limitation - N/N. 12/2013-S.T. dt. 1.7.2013 - Held that - it is provided that the refund under the notification should be filed within 1 year from the end of the month in which the actual payment of service tax is made by SEZ unit to the service provider. The Learned Commissioner has not touched upon any of the clause(e) or (f) provided in the notification and he has held that the period of 1 year should be reckoned from the end of the quarter, applying the provisions of Section 11B - the Learned Commissioner should not have decided a case only on Section 11B of the Act, particularly when the specific provisions for limitation is provided under N/N. 12/2013-ST. The matter needs reconsideration - appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
1. Interpretation of the time limit for filing refund claims under Notification No. 12/2013-S.T. 2. Application of specific clauses (e) and (f) in the notification for refund claims. 3. Discrepancy between the period prescribed under the notification and Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Analysis: The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI involved a dispute regarding the time limit for filing refund claims under Notification No. 12/2013-S.T. The Commissioner (Appeals) had sanctioned refunds totaling &8377; 18,04,189/- and &8377; 36,33,985/- to the respondent based on the interpretation that the limitation for filing the refund claim should be reckoned from the end of the quarter, as per Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. However, the Revenue contended that the specific clause (e) of the notification required the refund claim to be filed within 1 year from the end of the month in which the actual payment of service tax was made by the SEZ unit, not the end of the quarter as argued by the respondent. The Revenue argued that all conditions laid down in the notification, including the time limit for filing refund claims, should be strictly followed. Clause (e) of sub-clause (iii) of para 3 of the Notification stipulated that the refund claim should be submitted within 1 year from the end of the month in which the service tax payment was made by the SEZ unit. The respondent, however, filed the refund claim within 1 year from the end of the quarter, which exceeded the period prescribed under clause (e), rendering the refund inadmissible according to the Revenue. On the other hand, the respondent contended that clause (f) of the notification mandated that only one refund claim should be submitted per quarter, implying that the period for filing the claim should be reckoned from the end of the quarter, not the end of the month when the service tax payment was made. The respondent cited relevant judgments to support this interpretation. Upon careful consideration of the arguments presented by both parties, the Appellate Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) had not addressed the specific clauses (e) and (f) of the notification in question while deciding the case solely based on Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for reconsideration. The Commissioner was directed to issue a fresh order taking into account all submissions and the provisions of Notification No. 12/2013-S.T.
|
