2018 (6) TMI 1301 - AT - Service Tax

SEZ Unit - Refund of service tax paid - time limitation - N/N. 17/2011-ST dated 01.03.2011 and 40/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 - case of appellant is that it took time to collect necessary documents and file the refund claim - Held that - Whenever a notification is issued all relevant factors are considered by the Government before issuing it. As the process of collecting documents may take time, this notification provided one complete year from the date of payment of service tax for the applicant to file the refund claim. The notification further allowed by the Assistant Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner discretion is beyond one year if he has reasons to do so. In this case the appellant could not put forth in satisfactory reasons for filing the refund claim after more than one year of delay - there is no reason for the refund claim to be filed so late. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claim filed beyond the time limit specified in the notification.
2. Discretion of the Assistant Commissioner in extending the time period for filing refund claims.
3. Justification for delay in filing the refund claim.
4. Applicability of exemption notification and strict construction of the rule.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a SEZ unit, filed a refund claim for service tax paid on services used by them beyond the stipulated time frame of one year from the end of the month of payment, as required by Notification No. 17/2011-ST and 40/2012-ST. The Deputy Commissioner rejected the claim due to non-compliance with the time limit and failure to apply for an extension. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection, emphasizing strict adherence to the prescribed procedure under the law.

2. The appellant argued that the delay in filing the refund claim was unintentional, attributing it to the time taken to collect necessary documents, including challans showing payment to the Government account by the service provider. They contended that they diligently pursued the matter and requested the Assistant Commissioner to exercise discretion in condoning the delay. However, the Assistant Commissioner and the Commissioner (Appeals) found the reasons provided insufficient to warrant an extension beyond the stipulated period.

3. The Learned Departmental Representative reiterated that exemption notifications should be strictly construed, and any deviation from the prescribed procedure would render the claim invalid. The appellant's justification of delayed filing based on document collection was deemed unsatisfactory, lacking a compelling explanation for the prolonged delay. The rejection of the refund claim was supported on grounds of non-compliance with the notification requirements.

4. The Tribunal, after reviewing the case records and arguments, concluded that the appellant failed to provide adequate reasons for the delay in filing the refund claim. The notification allowed for a one-year period for filing, with provision for extension at the discretion of the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner. Since the appellant did not present compelling grounds for the delay exceeding the specified time frame, the rejection of the refund claim by the Assistant Commissioner and subsequent dismissal by the Commissioner (Appeals) were deemed appropriate in line with the strict interpretation of the exemption notification.

In the end, the Tribunal rejected the appeal, affirming the decisions of the lower authorities based on the appellant's failure to meet the prescribed time limit for filing the refund claim as per the notification requirements.