9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (4) TMI 888 - AT - Service TaxRefund of service tax paid - development charges to SIPCOT Industrial Growth Centre, Perundurai - time limitation - HELD THAT - A refund claim as per section 104 has to be filed within six months from the date when the Bill receives the assent of the President of India. Such assent was received on 31.3.2017. Thus, the refund claim ought to have been filed on or before 30.9.2017. In the present case, the refund claim is filed on 9.10.2017. Needless to say that when the service tax has been collected by SIPCOT, the appellant would require necessary documents from SIPCOT to file the refund claim - there was a confusion as to who has to file the refund claim and therefore this has led to the delay in filing the refund claim. In the decision cited by the ld. Counsel for appellant, the Tribunal has considered the issue and held that the time limit of one year prescribed in section 11B of Central Excise Act would apply. In the case of Teknomec Vs. CGST CE, Chennai 2019 (7) TMI 1416 - CESTAT CHENNAI , this Tribunal held that when claim has been filed within reasonable time from the date when appellant received intimation from SIPCOT, the refund has to be granted. The rejection of refund claim is unsustainable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
1. Refund claim of service tax paid on development charges. 2. Time limit for filing refund claim under section 104 of the Finance Act, 1994. 3. Applicability of the decision in Roop Automotives Ltd. Vs. CGST & Central Excise, Chennai. 4. Authority responsible for filing the refund claim. 5. Condonation of delay in filing the refund claim. 6. Interpretation of relevant legal provisions for granting refunds. Analysis: 1. The appellant filed a refund claim for service tax paid on development charges to SIPCOT Industrial Growth Centre, Perundurai. The claim was based on the exemption available under section 104 of the Finance Act, 1994, from 1.6.2007 to 21.9.2016. The refund claim was rejected by the refund sanctioning authority on the grounds that SIPCOT should make the claim, the claim was time-barred, and relevant documents were not provided. 2. The appellant argued that the delay in filing the refund claim was due to the necessity of obtaining documents from SIPCOT, which were received only on 26.9.2017. The appellant contended that the delay was justified and cited the case of Roop Automotives Ltd. Vs. CGST & Central Excise, Chennai, where the Tribunal had condoned a similar delay. 3. The department supported the rejection of the refund claim, emphasizing the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and contending that the rejection was appropriate. 4. The Tribunal noted that as per section 104, the refund claim should have been filed by 30.9.2017, but it was submitted on 9.10.2017. The delay was attributed to confusion regarding who should file the claim, as the original authority had previously stated that SIPCOT should make the claim. Citing precedents such as Teknomec Vs. CGST & CE, Chennai, the Tribunal held that the delay was reasonable, considering the time taken to receive necessary documents from SIPCOT. 5. Based on the Tribunal's interpretation of the legal provisions and precedents, the rejection of the refund claim was deemed unsustainable. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief, if any. This detailed analysis highlights the key legal issues, arguments presented by both parties, relevant legal precedents, and the Tribunal's interpretation leading to the final decision in favor of the appellant.
|
