9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 603X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tatute. The Authority empowered to use his discretion cannot ignore and remains silent when a request is made. One of the safeguards to ensure that discretion is exercised reasonably and judiciously is to give a reasoned order on the issue for which the power is being exercised. From the admission made by the appellant it is clear that there is some negligence on their part. The question is whether the degree of negligence is so high as to close the door of refund on the assessee- appellant, especially when the law permits that the normal period of filing a refund claim can be extended by the appropriate authority. To take a view that failure to comply with the time limit would result in dismissal of the appeal involving a fairly large sum is to put procedural requirement on a high pedestal and that too in this case without even attempting to examine the remedy available in law. This omission would hinder justice. No business man would knowingly file a belated claim. However long delays are also not in the interest of finalizing the rights and liabilities of both the appellant and revenue, expeditiously and statutory authorities along with the applicants are bound by the timelines ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the authorized operations of the SEZ. [The same has been tabulated at para 1 above.] The Ld. Counsel stated that they have claimed the refund after lapse of one year due to change in their administration department, they could not apply in time. The refund claims were rejected by the learned Asst. Commissioner by Order-In-Original No. 772/2016 (R) dt.21.12.2016 and Order-In-Original No. 26/2017 (R) dt.13.01.2017. Aggrieved by the said order the appellants filed two appeals before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) who after due process of law rejected the first appeal as time bar and in respect of second appeal partly allowed the appeal relating to payment of service tax beyond the relevant quarter but rejected the refund claim of Rs.95,877/- on grounds of time-bar. The Ld. Counsel stated that the person in their office dealing with tax matters was ailing and was having many health issues and was on leave frequently which resulted in the non-filing of refund claim in time. The new staff on seeing the pendency immediately took action in filing refund. It is settled position of law that substantive benefit should not be denied for procedural infraction. The Ld. Advocate submitted th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. i. Shree Royal Polyplast Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE - 2017 (347) E.L.T. 14 (Guj.) ii. G. Masilamani Vs. CESTAT, Chennai - 2017 (346) E.L.T. 168 (Mad.) iii. RE: Ace Hygiene Products Pvt. Ltd. - 2012 (276) E.L.T. 131 (G.O.I.) iv. CCE Vs. Radha Kanhaiya Textile Processors - 2016 (336) E.L.T. 654 (Tri.-Mumbai) v. Cummins Turbo Technology Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise Central Tax - (2023) 12 Centax 334 (Tri.-Del) vi. Lupin Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax and Central Excise - (2023) 9 Centax 325 (Tri.-Del) 3.2 The Ld. AR has taken me through the order and reiterated the points stated therein. He stated that the delay in filing the refund claims were not disputed. That time limits were sacrosanct and that statutory authorities could not ignore the same. 4. I have carefully gone through the appeals, the connected papers and the judgments cited by the rival parties. 5. Before taking up the issues, I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) in OIA No 21/2018(CTA-II) dated 31/01/2018, has held as under; 9. Para 3(III)(d) provides that the amount indicated in the invoice bill or as the case may be, challan, on the basis of which this refund is being claimed, in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax beyond the relevant quarter is not there as decided at para 9 in the impugned order dated 31/01/2018 and would hence be applicable to the earlier periods also and the matter hence stands remanded on the same terms in all such cases. The issue that remains for consideration is the question of time bar. 6. I find that para 3(III)(e) of Notification No. 12/2013-ST, dated 01/07/2013 states as under; 3.(III) The refund of service tax on (i) the specified services that are not exclusively used for authorised operation, or (ii) the specified services on which ab-initio exemption is admissible but not claimed, shall be allowed subject to the following procedure and conditions, namely:- (e) the claim for refund shall be filed within one year from the end of the month in which actual payment of service tax was made by such Developer or SEZ Unit to the registered service provider or such extended period as the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, shall permit; 7. The appellant while admitting the delay in filing the refund claims within the normal has pointed to the fact that clause 3(iii)(e) of Notification No. 12/2013 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at too in this case without even attempting to examine the remedy available in law. This omission would hinder justice. No business man would knowingly file a belated claim. However long delays are also not in the interest of finalizing the rights and liabilities of both the appellant and revenue, expeditiously and statutory authorities along with the applicants are bound by the timelines as mentioned in the Act or notification under which the refund is being processed. 10. When an Authority has been given a discretion to extend the time limit, that discretion must be seen to be exercised reasonably. The Hon ble Supreme Court in Union Of India Vs Jesus Sales Corporation [1996 (83) E.L.T. 486 (S.C.) / 2002-TIOL-259-SC-CUS /1996 (4) SCC 69], 4. . . . Whenever an unfettered discretion has been exercised courts have refused to countenance the same. That is why from time to time courts have woven a network of restrictive principles which the statutory authorities have to follow while exercising the discretion vested in them. This principle has been extended even when the authorities have to exercise administrative discretions under certain situations. Another well settled principle whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
