2024 (1) TMI 1213 - AT - Service Tax

Rejection of refund of the appellant being time barred - claim filed after stipulated period of one year as prescribed under the law - HELD THAT - Admittedly, the appellant has filed the refund claim beyond the stipulated period of one year as prescribed under the law and consequently, the Original Authority as well as the Appellate Authority have rejected the refund claim only on the ground of limitation. Further, both the Notification No. 52/2011-ST dated 30.12.2013 and the subsequent Notification No. 41/2012-ST dated 29.06.2012 clearly provides that the refund claim shall be filed within one year from the date of export of goods and in the present case, admittedly, the refund has been filed after the limitation period is over. The prayer of the Learned Counsel for the appellant that he may be allowed to take the cenvat credit at this stage, cannot be entertained because it would amount to allowing rebate which is not provided in the notification. There are no infirmity in the impugned order which is upheld by rejecting the appeal of the appellant - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The appeal against rejection of refund claim on the ground of being time-barred.

Summary:

Issue 1: Refund claim filed beyond the stipulated period
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing auto parts, filed a refund claim for service tax paid on specified services used for export of goods during 2008-2010 under Notification No. 52/2011-ST. The claim was rejected by the Original Authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground of being filed after the prescribed one-year period. The appellant contended that the rejection was invalid, citing wrong mentioning of the notification number as not a valid ground for rejection if the claim is otherwise admissible. The appellant also sought cenvat credit of input services as per CCR, 2004. The Tribunal observed that the claim was indeed filed after the limitation period, as per the Notifications, and that allowing cenvat credit at this stage would amount to granting rebate not provided for in the notification. The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the appeal, stating that the decisions relied upon by the appellant did not directly relate to the refund of cenvat credit of CHA Services, the issue in the present case.

Decision:
The impugned order rejecting the appeal against the refund claim being time-barred was upheld by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHANDIGARH.