2019 (1) TMI 718 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - export of the output service - time limitation - Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that - Filing of refund application is governed under the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as made applicable to the service tax matters under Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. The statute provides that the refund application should be filed with the competent authority before the expiry of one year from the relevant date - The appellant has not furnished any information with regard to non-filing of the claim application on 18.04.2016 and on 20.04.2016, which were not declared as public holidays and the Service Tax Department was functional during those days. It is evident that the refund application was filed beyond the stipulated time frame prescribed under Section 11B of the Act. In this case, since the appeal of Revenue was allowed by the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground of limitation, holding that the claim application was lodged after the prescribed time limit, there is no infirmity therein - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues involved: Time limit for filing a refund application under the statute, condonation of delay in filing the refund application.

Analysis:

1. Time limit for filing a refund application under the statute:
The case revolved around the time limit within which a refund application had to be filed under Notification No. 41/2012-ST dated 29.06.2012 for claiming a refund of Service Tax paid on input services used for exporting output services. The appellant filed the refund application on 21.04.2016, which was beyond the stipulated time frame prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, made applicable to service tax matters under Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Revenue contended that the refund claim was time-barred, as per the provisions of Section 11B. The impugned order by the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) favored the Revenue, setting aside the adjudication order and disallowing the refund claim due to being filed beyond the prescribed time limit.

2. Condonation of delay in filing the refund application:
The Learned Consultant for the appellant argued that the delay in filing the refund application should be condoned in the interest of justice. He cited various judgments, including those of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Courts, to support his contention that delay in filing refund applications can be condoned in certain circumstances. On the contrary, the Learned DR for the Revenue emphasized that the statutory time limit for filing a refund application should be strictly adhered to, with no discretion to condone delays. The Learned DR relied on judgments by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and a recent decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal to support this stance.

In the final analysis, the Tribunal found that the refund application was indeed filed beyond the prescribed time limit, and no discretion was provided under the statute to condone such delays. The Tribunal highlighted that the judgments cited by the Learned Consultant were not applicable to the present case, as they were not in the context of the Central Excise/Service Tax statute, which have specific time limits for filing refund applications. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed, upholding the decision that the refund claim was time-barred.

The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to statutory time limits for filing refund applications and the limitations on the authorities to condone delays in such filings, especially in the context of specific enactments like the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the Finance Act, 1994.