9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (10) TMI 143 - AT - Service TaxRefund of service tax paid - input services used for the export of goods under Notification No.9/2009-S.T. dated 03rd March, 2009 - delay in filing refund claim - time limitation - HELD THAT - The notification No.9/2009-S.T. grants the refund on service tax paid on input services used by the exporters - It is seen that the said provision prescribes the time limit of six months or such extended period as the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, shall permit, from the date of actual payment of service tax by such developer or unit to service provider. It is seen that the notification grants discretion to the Assistant Commissioner to extend the period of limitation. The notification No.9/2009-S.T. gives the discretion to the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner to allow refund even when there is a delay. In the present case, it is found that the appellant was confused in so far as they believed that the refund is to be filed on quarterly basis and therefore, they counted the delay on the basis of the last date of the quarter. If the last date of filing the refund is taken as the end of the quarter then the refund claims have been filed in time. There is a reasonable cause and in this circumstances the discretion are in favor of the appellant.
Issues:
- Rejection of refund claims of service tax paid on input services used for the export of goods under Notification No.9/2009-S.T. - Interpretation of the time limit for filing refund claims under clause 2(f) of Notification No.9/2009-S.T. - Applicability of case laws regarding the period for filing refund claims. - Discretion of the Assistant Commissioner to extend the period of limitation for filing refund claims. Analysis: The appeals were filed against the rejection of refund claims of service tax paid on input services used for exporting goods under Notification No.9/2009-S.T. The appellant had filed three refund claims which were rejected due to being filed beyond the prescribed six-month period under clause 2(f) of the notification. The appellant argued that they believed the refund claims had to be filed quarterly, citing case laws like PRODAIR AIR PRODUCTS INDIA PVT. LTD. and DISHMAN PHARMA. & CHEMICALS LTD. to support their interpretation that the period should be counted from the end of the quarter for which the refund was claimed. The Assistant Commissioner relied on the strict implementation of the limitation provision as per case laws like LOUIS DREFUS COMMODITIES INDIA P LTD. and TRANASIA BIO-MEDICALS LTD., emphasizing the need for strict verification as per the decision in the case of DILIP KUMAR & COMPANY. The tribunal noted that the notification grants discretion to the Assistant Commissioner to extend the period of limitation for filing refund claims, distinguishing the case laws relied upon by the revenue where no such discretion existed. The tribunal found that the appellant's confusion regarding the filing of refund claims on a quarterly basis led to the delay in filing, as they counted the delay based on the last date of the quarter. Considering this reasonable cause, the tribunal exercised discretion as prescribed in clause 2(f) of the notification and condoned the delay in filing the refund claims, ultimately allowing the appeals. The judgment highlighted the importance of understanding the specific provisions of the notification and the discretion granted to the Assistant Commissioner in such matters.
|
