Case Law Details
V.V. Titanium Pigments Pvt. Ltd Vs Commissioner of GST (CESTAT Chennai)
The issue that requires to be analysed in these present appeals is whether the date of one year has to be computed from the date of resubmission of the refund claim or the date of original submission of the claim. Needless to say that the date of original submission has to be taken for computing the period of one year as it is the date on which the appellant has filed the claim initially. The claim has been returned and not processed and rejected by the department. When the claim is returned for resubmission, the appellant is allowed to make the required rectification. On such score, I am of the view that rejection of the refund claim on the ground that the same is time-barred when computed from date of resubmission of the refund claim is erroneous and requires to be set aside which I hereby do.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT CHENNAI ORDER
The issue in both these appeals being the same and connected, they are heard together and disposed by this common order.
The appellant had filed refund claim of service tax paid on input service used for export of the manufactured goods in terms of Notification No. 41/2012-ST dated 29.6.2012. The refund claim pertains to the period October 2013 to March 2014 and was received by the department on 7.10.2014. The said claim was returned to the appellant to rectify the defects and submit with necessary documents. The refund claim was then resubmitted on 20.1.2015. After due process of law, the refund sanctioning authority sanctioned the refund of Rs.1,58,739/-. Against such order the department filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) which was allowed in favour of the department. Against this order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the appellant has filed the present appeal No. ST/41699/2016. Meanwhile, a Show Cause Notice was issued to the appellant proposing to recover the erroneously granted refund. The said Show Cause Notice was adjudicated which culminated in favour of the department thereby rejecting the refund that was sanctioned earlier. Against this, appeal was filed by the appellant before Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the same. Aggrieved by such order, appellant has filed Appeal No. ST/42459/2017.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
