9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 681X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at quarter. In this regard, it is observed that the Government has realized the difficulties faced by exporters and issued the Notification No. 32/2008-S.T. dated 18.11.2008, extending the time limit of sixty days for filing the refund claim to six months. This beneficial Notification can be applied retrospectively so as to allow refund applications filed within the period of six months from the quarter ending date. The substantial benefit of refund cannot be denied merely on account of non-fulfilment of procedural conditions prescribed under the said Notification. This view has been taken by this Tribunal in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CGST CENTRAL EXCISE, JAMSHEDPUR VERSUS M/S RUNGTA MINES LTD. [ 2023 (9) TMI 1093 - CESTAT KOLKATA] wherein it has been 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. Conclusion - The Appellant is eligible for the refund of input services as claimed by them, as provided under Notification No. 41/2007-S.T. dated 06.10.2007. Appeal allowed. - SHRI R. MURALIDHAR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND SHRI K. ANPAZHAKAN, MEMBER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Refund claim allowed in the Order-in-Original 11,050,847.00 18,069,770.00 10,416,854.00 2,277,540.00 812,805.00 42,627,816.00 Refund Claimed disallowed in the Order-in-Original 1,533,099.00 698,411.00 346,086.00 130,446.00 389,812.00 3,097,854.00 Refund claim allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the İmpugned Order-in-Appeal 366,531.00 622,742.00 298,358.00 72,299.00 35,395.00 1.395,325.00 Rejection of refund claim upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the İmpugned Order-in-Appeal 1,166,568.00 75,669.00 47,728.00 58,147.00 354,417-00 1,702,529.00 5. It is the submission of the Appellant that receipt of the relevant services and utilisation of the same in connection with the export of goods and payment of Service Tax thereon has not been disputed in these cases. It is stated that their appeals have been rejected by the lower appellate authority only on account of lapses of procedural grounds prescribed under the Notification No. 41/2007-S.T. The Appellant submits that as per Notification No. 41/2007-S.T., Service Tax paid in respect of the services notified therein, are eligible for refund; as a procedural requirement, an exporter is required to file the refund claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 112402.42-88846) MTs of Iron Ore unloaded inside the Port because it is not relatable to exports. (d) The exporter had paid the amount of the Bills along with Service Tax as evident from the payment advice and receipts issued by M/s MITRA. S.K. Pvt. Ltd., two invoices as mentioned in the pattern WB/09-10/01-17 dt. 07.04.2009 and C/08-09/12-249 dt.31.03.2009 the service received at the Haldia Port in the Month of March 2009 whereas the relevant export from the Port was completed on 08.02. 2009. Thus the Service to the tune of Rs.836/- are not relatable to export. (ii) (a) Order-in-Original No. R-51/RKL-II/2011 dated 24.02.2011 [Appeal No. ST/70235/2013] Service provided against Bill No. RIP-293/12 dated 26.06.2019 by M/s Ripley Co Limited, the refund claim for Rs.65,065/- whereas the Service Tax paid against the invoice has been mentioned as Rs.30,065/-; Hence excess claimed amount of Rs.35,577/-[period - April 2009-to June 2009] (b) Service provided against Bill No. TER/2009/178 dated 20.07.2009 by M/s Kolkata Port Trust, Haldia Dock Complex was during July-2009 and therefore the Service cannot be construed to have been used in the export of goods during the period April 2009-to Ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n by the Appellant and usage of such services in relation to export of goods are not in dispute. The refund has been rejected on the procedural ground that the Appellant has filed the refund claim for a particular quarter wherein some of the bills and invoices were dated subsequent to the quarter ending date which is beyond the time limit of 'sixty days' prescribed under Notification No. 41/2007-S.T. dated 06.10.2007. In some cases, the exports had also been made prior to the date of invoice. Accordingly, the ld. adjudicating authority has rejected the refund claims on the ground that these input services could not be related to the goods exported in that quarter. In this regard, we observe that the Government has realized the difficulties faced by exporters and issued the Notification No. 32/2008-S.T. dated 18.11.2008, extending the time limit of sixty days for filing the refund claim to six months. We observe that this beneficial Notification can be applied retrospectively so as to allow refund applications filed within the period of six months from the quarter ending date. We also observe that the substantial benefit of refund cannot be denied merely on account of non-fu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... subsequent amendment in the Notification. It is his submission that the refund claim was filed beyond the 60 days as stipulated in the notification 41/2007-ST, well before the amendment on 18-11-2008. Hence, according to him it was a dead claim which cannot be revived as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited above. We do not agree with the interpretation of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court by the Ld. A.R. As per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Uttam Steel Ltd, only a dead claim cannot be revived by a subsequent amendment in the Notification. In the present case, the refund claim filed by the respondent was not a dead claim. The claim was filed well within the time limit permitted in the Notification 41/2007-ST. Only a part of the claim was held as time barred by the adjudicating authority based on his findings that a portion of the claim was relatable to goods exported during the quarter ending December 2007. We observe that Notification No.32/2008-ST dated 18-11-2008 extended the time limit for filing the refund claim from 60 days to 6 months and validated that portion the refund claim which was filed beyond 60 days. Thus, we observe that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
