2022 (2) TMI 793 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of tax paid - refund claim was rejected by the adjudicating authority on the ground of time bar that the appellant has filed the refund claim beyond one year after reversal of the duty in R.G.23A - Section 11B of CEA - HELD THAT - Firstly the appellant have not represented the case before the adjudicating authority therefore, the adjudicating authority had no occasion to verify the facts regarding adjustment of duty paid on the audit objection, date of realisation of foreign exchange and submission of proof of export. There are also no evidence such as any correspondence regarding adjustment of duty by the department against the payment made by the appellant. In this fact, the matter needs to be reconsidered by the adjudicating authority. It is noted that in the peculiar facts of the present case since non-filing of proof of export beyond the control of the appellant, they had also not realized the export proceed the period from payment of duty till adjustment of duty by the department/receipt of export proceed/receipt of proof of export should be deducted for computing the time limit of one year in terms of Section 11B. The matter remanded to the adjudicating authority for passing a fresh order after observance of principal of natural justice - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Time limit for filing refund claim against export of goods under bond.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the time limit for filing a refund claim against the export of goods under bond. The appellant had not received proof of export within the stipulated six-month period, leading to the reversal of Central Excise Duty. The refund claim of ?127581 was rejected by the adjudicating authority as it was filed beyond one year after the duty reversal. The appellant argued that the period should be reckoned from the adjustment of duty paid, not the duty reversal date. The appellant also contended that the time limit should start from the realization of export proceeds. The appellate authority noted that the appellant did not present evidence regarding the adjustment of duty or the realization of export proceeds before the adjudicating authority.

The appellate authority found that the lower authorities rejected the claim based on the appellant's failure to file the refund claim within one year from the duty reversal. However, considering the unique circumstances where the appellant could not produce proof of export due to reasons beyond their control, the period from duty payment to duty adjustment/realization of export proceeds should be excluded when calculating the one-year time limit under Section 11B. The appellate authority directed the matter to be reconsidered by the adjudicating authority, emphasizing the need to observe the principles of natural justice.

In conclusion, the appellate authority set aside the impugned order and remanded the case to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision after ensuring the application of the principles of natural justice. The appeal was allowed by way of remand to the Adjudicating Authority, with the pronouncement made in the open court on 17.02.2022.