2018 (11) TMI 1385 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of CENVAT Credit on various input services - refund on the ground of time limitation - denial also on the ground that these services were not approved by the Development Commissioner - whether the refund application filed by the appellant in October, 2014 for the period ending October, 2013 should be treated as time barred in terms of the notification? - Held that - The refund application was filed for the period ending October, 2013 and in view of the General Clauses Act, this month cannot be reckoned while calculating the period of one year. It has to begin from November, 2013 and ends in October, 2014. Therefore, the refund application has been filed within time limit and rejection of refund to the extent of ₹ 6,55,298/- on this account is incorrect and needs to be set aside. Even otherwise, the notification itself provides for extension of this time by the Asst. Commissioner/ Dy. Commissioner. Whether the appellant is entitled to refund of ₹ 8,80,140/- on account of services for which they had not permission of the Unit Approval Committee of the Development Commissioner? - Held that - This approval being an essential requirement of the Exemption N/N. 12/2013-ST needs to be fully complied with if the appellant seeks to claim refund under the notification. There is nothing on record to show that the approval which is said to have not been obtained by the lower authority which fact has been reconfirmed by the first appellate authority has actually been obtained. Therefore, the refund on this account needs to be disallowed. The impugned order is modified to the extent that the amount of ₹ 8,80,140/- denied to the appellant on the account of limitation in filing the refund claim is set aside - Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund of input Cenvat Credit claimed by the appellant.
2. Rejection of refund application by lower authorities.
3. Interpretation of time limit for filing refund claim.
4. Compliance with the approval requirement of the Development Commissioner for services.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a service provider, sought a refund of input Cenvat Credit under Notification No. 12/2013-ST. The lower authority allowed a partial refund of &8377; 1,93,853/- but rejected &8377; 6,55,298/- for late filing and &8377; 8,80,140/- for lack of Development Commissioner approval.

2. The first appellate authority upheld the lower authority's decision, leading to the current appeal. The appellant argued that the time limit for filing the refund claim should start from November 2013, not October 2013, citing the General Clauses Act and various case laws to support their position.

3. The tribunal analyzed the General Clauses Act and case laws presented, determining that the one-year period for filing the refund claim indeed commenced from November 2013, not October 2013. Thus, the refund application filed in October 2014 was within the specified time limit, rendering the rejection of &8377; 6,55,298/- incorrect and setting it aside.

4. Regarding the &8377; 8,80,140/- refund denial due to lack of Development Commissioner approval, the tribunal emphasized the requirement's importance under Notification No. 12/2013-ST. Since no evidence of obtaining the approval was presented, the tribunal upheld the denial of this refund amount.

5. Consequently, the tribunal modified the impugned order, allowing the refund of &8377; 8,80,140/- previously denied due to the time limit issue. The appeal was disposed of accordingly, with the decision pronounced in open court on 20.11.2018.