2024 (3) TMI 232 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - part rejection on the ground of time limitation - N/N. 41/2007-ST dated 06.10.2007 - HELD THAT - The receipt of the relevant services, payment of service tax thereon by the appellant and usage of said services in relation to export goods are not in dispute. The refund was rejected on the procedural ground that the appellant had filed the refund claim for the quarter January 2008 to March 2008, but some bills/invoices were pertaining to the quarter ending December 2007, which were beyond the time limit of 60 days prescribed in the Notification No. 41/2007. On verification, it was found that in respect of many shipping bills, the exports had been made prior to December 2007 but the invoices had been received during the quarter January 2008 to March 2008. Accordingly, the ld. adjudicating authority considered that in respect of those shipping bills where the exports had been made prior to December 2007, the refund claim filed by the Appellant on 30.05.2008 was barred by limitation. The Government has realized the difficulty of the exporters and issued Notification No.32/2008-ST dated 18.11.2008 extending the time period for filing the refund claim from 60 days to six months . It is observed that this beneficial notification can be applied retrospectively so as to allow the refund applications filed within the period of six months from the quarter ending. It is also observed that the substantial benefit of refund cannot be denied on account of non-fulfilment of the procedural conditions prescribed in the notification. This view has been taken by this Tribunal vide the Final Order No.76710/2023 dated 20.09.2023 in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CGST CENTRAL EXCISE, JAMSHEDPUR VERSUS M/S RUNGTA MINES LTD. 2023 (9) TMI 1093 - CESTAT KOLKATA wherein this Tribunal has held that the extension of the time limit for filing the refund claim from 60 days to six months being a piece of beneficial legislation, has to be considered as a retrospective amendment. The Appellant is eligible for the refund of Rs.12,14,012/- which was rejected on the ground of limitation - appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of refund claim on the ground of limitation.
2. Procedural vs. substantive conditions in claiming refund under Notification No. 41/2007-ST.

Summary:

1. Rejection of refund claim on the ground of limitation:
The appellant, an exporter of Iron Ore, filed for a refund of service tax under Notification No. 41/2007-ST. The adjudicating authority allowed a partial refund but rejected Rs.12,14,012/- as time-barred, since the invoices for some exports made prior to December 2007 were filed in the quarter January to March 2008, beyond the prescribed 60 days. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this rejection. The appellant contested only the rejection of Rs.12,14,012/-.

2. Procedural vs. substantive conditions in claiming refund under Notification No. 41/2007-ST:
The appellant argued that the rejection based on procedural grounds contradicted the substantive condition of refunding service tax paid on specified services. They cited Notification No. 32/2008-ST, which extended the filing period from 60 days to six months, and argued this should be applied retrospectively as a beneficial legislation. The Tribunal agreed, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Dillip Kumar & Co., which emphasized liberal interpretation of exemption notifications. The Tribunal also cited its own decision in Commissioner of C.G.S.T. & Central Excise, Jamshedpur v. M/s. Rungta Mines Ltd., supporting the retrospective application of the extended filing period.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal held that the appellant is eligible for the refund of Rs.12,14,012/-, rejecting the procedural ground of limitation. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.