9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 328X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as per claim. - Decided in favour of appellant - Appeal No. ST/15 & 16/2012 - Final Order Nos. A/86655-86656/2016-WZB/STB - Dated:- 24-9-2015 - M V Ravindran, Member (J) And C J Mathew, Member (T) For the Appellant : Shri L Badrinarayanan, Adv For the Respondent : Shri A K Goswami, Addl. Commissioner (AR) ORDER Per C J Mathew M/s Repro India Ltd is in the business of producing, inter alia, single colour/multi-colour printed books that are exported. In the process of undertaking this work, a number of services which being used as inputs for exports, are exempt from being taxed; this exemption is, however, not provided up-front. Consequently, this exemption is claimed through a refund route prescribed in notification no. 41/2007-ST dated 6th October 2007 including procedures and conditions that are to be complied with. One of the conditions is that refund in relation to exports of each quarter is to be preferred in a single claim. The claims of M/s Repro India Ltd for the period from July 2008 to September 2008 and from October 2008 to December 2008 were rejected as 'time-barred' by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur. Commissioner of C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s used for export of said goods has been taken under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004; (e) the said goods have been exported without availing drawback of service tax paid on the specified services under the Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995; (f) exemption or refund of service tax paid on the specified services used for export of said goods shall not be claimed except under this notification. 2. The exemption contained in this notification shall be given effect to in the following manner, namely:- (a) the person liable to pay service tax under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 68 of the said Finance Act shall pay service tax as applicable on the specified services provided to the exporter and used for export of the said goods, and such person shall not be eligible to claim exemption for the specified services: Provided that where the exporter of the said goods and the person liable to pay service tax under sub-section (2) of section 68 for the said services are the same person, then in such cases exemption for the specified services shall be claimed by that person; (b) the exporter shall claim the exemption by filing a cla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refund the service tax paid on the specified services used for export of said goods; (h) where any refund of service tax paid on specified services used for export of said goods has been paid to an exporter but the sale proceeds in respect of the said goods have not been realised by or on behalf of the exporter in India within the period allowed under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (42 of 1999), including any extension of such period, such service tax refunded shall be recoverable under the provisions of the said Finance Act and the rules made thereunder, as if it is a recovery of service tax erroneously refunded. 4. The deadline of sixty days from the end of the quarter prescribed for filing of refund claims was extended to six months vide notification no. 32/2008-ST dated 18 th November 2008. Thereafter vide notification no. 17/2009-ST dated 7 th July 2009, the deadline was further extended to one year from the end of the relevant quarter. 5. It appears that refund claim of ₹ 9,46,278 for the quarter ending September 2008 was filed on 31 st March 2009 and refund claim of ₹ 24,81,551/- for the quarter ending December 2008 was filed on 30 th June 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... protracted correspondence on record. 10. For the quarters relevant to the two claims, the stipulated deadline was six months from the end of the quarter. Therefore, the appellant did comply with this stipulation. The returns of the applications for rectifying deficiencies and the re-filings thereafter is a clear indication that the competent authorities were not unaware that the claims had been filed on time. If the completeness of the application was sine qua non for admissibility of the application, the claim could well have been rejected by immediate issue of a show cause notice and adjudication thereupon instead of taking the course that it did. 11. With this elapse of time in finalizing the claim for refunds the validity of which was sub silentio not questioned, the original authority appeared to have been actuated by the probability of claim for interest arising from the delay that entailed. To reject the claims thereafter, not on merit but by resort to bar of limitation, at the end of the protracted process reflects lack of responsibility and lack of accountability. That this is so is confirmed in the concurrence with this summary disposal by the first appellate author ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... olpur v Bhandigurhi Tea Estate [2001 (134) ELT 116 (Tri - Kolkota)], Wood Working Centre v Collector of Central Excise, Indore [1996 (85) ELT 201 (Tribunal)] and Rohit Pulp Paper Mills Ltd v Collector of Central Excise [1991 (53) ELT 440 (Tribunal)] has consistently been reiterating this position. The decision of the Tribunal in re Rohit Pulp Paper Mills Ltd has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in dismissing the appeal of Revenue in Civil Appeal no 7953 of 1995 by order of 18 th March 1996. In the face of this settled position, the lower authorities have erred grievously in denying the refund for almost five years. 15. We would also like to touch upon yet another issue raised in these proceedings: that appellant had wrongly enhanced the claim during the pendency of the claim. This has also been settled by the Tribunal in Premier Tyres Ltd, Kalamassery v Collector of Customs, Madras [ 1984 (16) ELT 419 (Tribunal)] thus 31. In view of the foregoing, answer to the question for decision in the present appeal is that if on a proper classification refund of larger amount than admissible under the heading or item originally claimed becomes payable to the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
