2022 (11) TMI 746 - AT - Central Excise

Rejection of refund claim - rejection on the ground of limitation provided under Notification No. 12/2013 dated 01.07.2013 as amended - rejection on the ground that the services were availed for the unregistered premises - HELD THAT - The submissions made by the appellant to the effect that date of payment of advance amount is the date of payment of premium has not been considered by the authorities below inasmuch as no such finding to such extent has been recorded in this regard. Since the appellant, at this juncture, has submitted the working sheet mentioning that the refund application was filed within stipulated time of one year from the relevant date, the refund benefit should be available to the appellant - there are force in the submission of the appellant that the date of payment of premium is specifically to be examined by the original authority for ascertaining the fact regarding the time bar aspect as provided in the said notification for grant of the refund benefit. The matter is remanded to the original authority for recording a fresh finding - appeal is allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Refund application rejection on the ground of limitation under Notification No. 12/2013 and for services availed at unregistered premises.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax rejecting the refund application for a specific period and amount. The first appellate authority rejected the refund application based on the limitation provided under Notification No. 12/2013 dated 01.07.2013 and also for services availed at unregistered premises. The appellant argued that the refund claims were not time-barred as they were filed within one year from the date of payment of Service Tax. The appellant presented a working sheet indicating that the payments made were ad-hoc and should be considered as an advance. The appellant contended that the refund applications were not time-barred and should be granted as per the notification.

The Revenue, on the other hand, argued that the working sheet submitted by the appellant was not sufficient as it was presented for the first time before the Tribunal. The Revenue contended that the statement needed verification at the original stage to determine whether the refund application was filed within the prescribed time limit. After hearing both sides and examining the case records, the Tribunal found that the authorities below did not consider the appellant's argument regarding the date of payment of the advance amount. The Tribunal noted that since the working sheet was now submitted, the original authority should examine the date of payment of premium to determine if the refund application was filed within the stipulated time.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the original authority for fresh findings in line with the observations made. The original authority was directed to re-examine the date of payment of premium and other issues in the case. The appellant was granted a personal hearing before a fresh decision was made. Consequently, the appeal was allowed by way of remand, providing the appellant with an opportunity to have their case reconsidered.