2024 (9) TMI 772 - AT - Service Tax

Time limitation for filing refund claim - refund claims have been filed beyond the stipulated time limit of one year - whether service tax paid on input services used for export of medicines for the period April, 2013 to January, 2014, is refundable in terms of N/N. 41/2002-S.T. dated 29.06.2012 or not? - HELD THAT - The original authority had scrutinized the refund claim filed by the appellants and after recording his findings that the appellants have not filed refund applications within one time had rejected the refunds. It is found that in order to claim the refund of service tax paid on the input services on export of goods as per the N/N.41/2012-S.T. dated 29.06.2012, the requirements are that in respect of various extent/conditions prescribed therein, have to be fulfilled by the claimant/ exporter and the refund shall be granted in the manner specified therein. Further, in terms of Section 11 B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as made applicable to matters relating to service tax under Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994, any application for refund of duty/tax shall be filed before the expiry of one year from the relevant date prescribed therein. On the above basis and as per the condition 3(g) of the aforesaid Notification, the refund claim shall be filed within one year from the date of export of the goods for which such input services were used. The case in hand does not relate to the first category of unconstitutional levy or the third category of refund on the basis of the judgement delivered by the Hon ble Supreme Court. It squarely falls under the second category of duty/tax paid by the claimant which could at the most be treated as illegal levy. However, even in such cases, the legal provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as made applicable to service tax, would apply for refund of service tax. With respect to the time limit for filing of a refund claim in such case, it is mandated under said Section 11B of the Act of 1944 that such refund claim is required to be filed within one year from the relevant date. It is a fact on record that the Notification No.41/2002-S.T. dated 29.06.2012 under which the refund has been filed in this case, had prescribed that the refund claim shall be filed within one year from the date of export. As regards the disputed part of the refund claim relating to Freight, Banking and other Financial services for which the appellants have filed this appeal, it is found that the respective refund claims have been filed beyond the prescribed time limit of one year from the relevant date, and therefore these are clearly barred by limitation of time as mandated under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as made applicable to service tax under Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 and as per condition 3(g) of the Notification No. 41/2012-S.T. dated 29.06.2012. There are no grounds for interfering with the impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, the appeal preferred by the appellants is liable to be dismissed on the grounds of time bar. The appeal filed by the appellants is dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Timeliness of refund claims for service tax paid on input services.
2. Applicability of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 to the refund claims.
3. Classification of service tax paid as 'deposit' versus 'tax'.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Timeliness of Refund Claims for Service Tax Paid on Input Services

The appellants filed four refund claims for service tax paid on input services used for exporting goods during April 2013 to January 2014, totaling Rs. 30,23,843/-. These claims were filed on June 6, 2018, well beyond the one-year limitation period specified in Notification No. 41/2012-Service Tax dated 29.06.2012. The original authority, the Deputy Commissioner (CRS), GST & Central Excise, Thane, rejected the claims as time-barred without examining their merits.

Upon appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) partially allowed the refund for service tax paid on 'Speed Post' services, treating it as a 'deposit' rather than a 'tax', thus not subject to the one-year limitation. However, the refund claims for other services like Freight and Banking were upheld as time-barred.

2. Applicability of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 to the Refund Claims

The Tribunal examined whether the refund claims fell under the purview of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which mandates that any refund application must be filed within one year from the relevant date. The Tribunal found that the claims were indeed subject to this provision, as the service tax paid was not unconstitutional or based on a Supreme Court judgment but rather an illegal levy.

The Tribunal noted that the Notification No. 41/2012-S.T. dated 29.06.2012 explicitly requires that refund claims be filed within one year from the date of export. Since the appellants filed their claims beyond this period, the claims were time-barred.

3. Classification of Service Tax Paid as 'Deposit' Versus 'Tax'

The Commissioner (Appeals) had allowed a partial refund for service tax paid on 'Speed Post' services, treating it as a 'deposit' rather than a 'tax', thereby not subject to the one-year limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal found this basis disputable but did not examine it further as neither the Revenue nor the appellants appealed against this part of the order.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, dismissing the appeal on the grounds of time-bar. The refund claims for Freight, Banking, and other Financial services were filed beyond the one-year limitation period specified under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and Notification No. 41/2012-S.T. dated 29.06.2012. Therefore, the claims were rightly rejected as time-barred.

Order Pronounced in Open Court: 09.09.2024

← Previous Next →