9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 681X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refund of input services used in connection with the exports for various quarters. 3. The ld. adjudicating authority observed that in respect of some of the shipping bills, the invoices pertaining to the services received have been raised after the exports were completed and so, the services for which the refund has been claimed were not relatable to the export of goods in the said quarter. Hence, the ld. adjudicating authority rejected the said refund claims on the ground of limitation. 3.1. On appeal, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), vide the impugned order, has allowed the refund claimed on Education Cess and Secondary and Higher Education Cess and has rejected the remaining refund claims on the ground of limitation. Aggrieved against the impugned orders rejecting the refunds, the appellant has filed these appeals. 4. The details of the appeals filed by the appellant along with the amount of refunds rejected during the respective periods, are furnished in the table given below: - Period APRİL-08 TO JUNE-08 JULY-08 TO SEPT-08 APRİL-09 TO JUNE-09 APRİL-09 TO JUNE-09 JAN-09 TO MARCH-09 Total Amount (Rs,) Ref. No. O-I-O NO.- R-149, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cordingly, the appellant submits that the delay in getting the invoices within the sixty days' time cannot be a ground for rejection of the refund claims on the ground of limitation. 5.1. The Appellant also points out that this Tribunal has already decided this issue in their own case for an earlier period and allowed the refund to the Appellant under Notification No. 41/2007-S.T. vide Final Order No. 75380 of 2024 dated 26.02.2024 in Service Tax Appeal No. 174 of 2012 [CESTAT, Kolkata]. 5.2. Accordingly, the Appellant has prayed for allowing the refund as claimed by them. 6. The Ld. Authorised Representative of the Revenue filed a written submission wherein he has made the following submissions: (i) (a) Order-in-Original No. R-09/RKL-11/2011 dated 24.01.2011 (Period - January 2009 to March 2009) [Appeal No. ST/70234/2013] in respect of Invoice Nos. LMHC/EMIL/UL/37/2008-09 has been provided for the period from 26.03.2009 to 31.03.2009 i.e., after the subject vessel have already been sailed. Thus refund of Service Tax of Rs.20,119/- cannot be allowed on this invoice. (b) In respect of Bill/Invoice No. RIP-1701/01 and RIP-1716/02 both dated 31.03.2009 whereas the relevant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Nos 881142,881114 and PTPL/066/08-09 (mentioned at Sl. No. 11,14 & 24 of the table at Order-in-Original) are not with respect of the related quarter. Hence the claim of Rs.9690/- is not to be allowed. (iv) (a) Order-in-Original No. R-111/RKL-11/2011 dated 19.04.2011 [Appeal No. ST/70238/2013] (period July 2008 to September 2008) The invoices issued by M/s GEO CHEM LABORATORIES PVT LTD as shown at sl. No. 15 to 17 and 33 to 38 of the table of the mentioned Order-in-Original the service has been provided with relation to Vessel M.V. Majestic Star which is not the specified vessel through which the goods were exported during the relevant quarter. Thus, the refund of Service Tax of Rs. 5040/- cannot be allowed. 7. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 8. We observe that the Appellant has claimed refund of Service Tax paid on the services used in export of goods as provided under Notification No. 41/2007-ST dated 06.10.2007. The said Notification exempts the whole of Service Tax leviable on taxable services, such as port services, notified under the said Notification, which are used in relation to export of goods. The said exemption is to be claimed by an exporter by way ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red as a retrospective amendment. The relevant part of the said decision is reproduced below: - "12. From the Notification No.32/2008-ST dated 18-11-2008 cited above, we observe that the notification has extended the time limit for filing of refund claims under Notification 41/2007 dated 06.10.2007, from 60 days to 6 months. Board Circular No.112/6/2009-ST dated 12-03-2009 has clarified the doubts with specific examples. The Circular categorically states that in view of the extended time limit, the refund claim for the quarter March-June 2008 can be filed till 31st December 2008. In the present case, the Appellant has filed the refund for the quarter January 2008 to March 2008, within the stipulated period of 60 days. However, on verification of the documents, the adjudicating authority observed that a portion of the claim was relatable to goods exported during the quarter ending December 2007 and only for that portion, the claim was filed beyond 60 days from the end of the relevant quarter during which the said goods were exported. Accordingly, the adjudicating authority has rejected part of the refund claim amounting to Rs.56,71,926/- as time barred. Thus, we observe that the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
