2023 (9) TMI 1093 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of Service Tax - time limitation - rejection on the ground that the refund claim was filed beyond the period of limitation of 60 days as provided under Para 2(e) of the said notification - HELD THAT - From the N/N. 32/2008-ST dated 18-11-2008, it is observed that the notification has extended the time limit for filing of refund claims under Notification 41/2007 dated 06.10.2007, from 60 days to 6 months. Board Circular No.112/6/2009-ST dated 12-03-2009 has clarified the doubts with specific examples. The Circular categorically states that in view of the extended time limit, the refund claim for the quarter March-June 2008 can be filed till 31st December 2008 - In the present case, the Appellant has filed the refund for the quarter January 2008 to March 2008, within the stipulated period of 60 days. However, on verification of the documents, the adjudicating authority observed that a portion of the claim was relatable to goods exported during the quarter ending December 2007 and only for that portion, the claim was filed beyond 60 days from the end of the relevant quarter during which the said goods were exported. Accordingly, the adjudicating authority has rejected part of the refund claim amounting to Rs.56,71,926/- as time barred. In the present case, the refund claim filed by the respondent was not a dead claim. The claim was filed well within the time limit permitted in the Notification 41/2007-ST. Only a part of the claim was held as time barred by the adjudicating authority based on his findings that a portion of the claim was relatable to goods exported during the quarter ending December 2007 . It is observed that Notification No.32/2008-ST dated 18-11-2008 extended the time limit for filing the refund claim from 60 days to 6 months and validated that portion the refund claim which was filed beyond 60 days. Thus, there is no merit in the contention of the Ld.A.R that it was a dead claim that cannot be revived. Accordingly, there is no infirmity in the impugned order, which has rightly allowed the refund of Rs.56.71.926/-, as per the Notification No.32/2008-ST dated 18-11-2008 and the clarification issued by Board vide Circular No.112/6/2009-ST dated 12-03-2009. Appeal filed by Revenue dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of Refund Claim on Grounds of Limitation
2. Retrospective Application of Amended Limitation Period
3. Validity of the Refund Claim under Amended Notification

Summary:

1. Rejection of Refund Claim on Grounds of Limitation:
The Department appealed against the order allowing a refund of Rs. 56,71,926/- to the Respondent, which was initially rejected by the Deputy Commissioner on the grounds that the refund claim was filed beyond the 60-day limitation period as stipulated under Para 2(e) of Notification No.41/2007-S.T. The Respondent argued that the rejection on the ground of limitation was outside the purview of the show cause notice and relied on the Supreme Court judgment in CCE Vs. Shital International, which held that Revenue cannot raise fresh pleas not mentioned in the show cause notice.

2. Retrospective Application of Amended Limitation Period:
The Respondent contended that the limitation period for filing refund claims was extended from 60 days to 6 months by Notification No.32/2008-ST dated 18-11-2008, which was clarified by the Board through Circular No.112/6/2009-ST dated 12-03-2009. The Respondent argued that this amendment should be applied retrospectively, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Suchitra Components Ltd., which stated that beneficial circulars should be applied retrospectively.

3. Validity of the Refund Claim under Amended Notification:
The Tribunal noted that the refund claim was initially filed within the 60-day period but was partially rejected as time-barred for the portion relating to goods exported in the quarter ending December 2007. The Notification No.32/2008-ST extended the time limit to 6 months, thereby validating the entire claim. The Tribunal rejected the Department's argument that a dead claim cannot be revived by a subsequent amendment, clarifying that the claim was not dead but merely partially time-barred. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, allowing the refund of Rs. 56,71,926/-.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, confirming that the refund of Rs. 56,71,926/- was valid under the amended Notification No.32/2008-ST and the Board's Circular No.112/6/2009-ST. The appeal filed by the Department was rejected.