Case Law Details

Case Name : M/s Andhra Ferro Alloys Ltd. Vs Commissioner Of Central Excise (CESTAT Bangalore)
Appeal Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 961/2009
Date of Judgement/Order : 03/01/2011
Related Assessment Year :
Courts : All CESTAT (608) CESTAT Bangalore (87)

In the instant case, the refund claim was filed on 2/1/2009. The learned Consultant’s contention is that the marginal delay of 3 days should be condoned. Since there is a delay of three days, it is not within the power of the authorities to condone the delay in filing the refund claim, that too a time limit which is envisaged in the Notification.

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, BANGALORE

Service Tax Appeal No. 961/2009

Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.91/2009 (V-I) ST Dated: 29.9.2009
Passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Service Tax and Customs (Appeals), Visakhapatnam

Date of Decision: 3.1.2011

M/s ANDHRA FERRO ALLOYS LTD.

Vs

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, VISAKHAPATNAM

FINAL ORDER NO. 22/2011

Per: M V Ravindran:

This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 91/2009 (V-I) ST dated 29.9.2009, passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Service Tax and Customs, Visakhapatnam .

2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellant herein has filed an application for refund of service tax paid towards export of goods made during the period from 17.3.2008 to 14.6.2008. As per Notification No. 40/2007 ST dated 17.6.2007 and subsequent clarification given by the Board vide its circular No. 112/06/2009-ST dated 12.3.2009, the time limit for filing refund claim before the authority was extended up to 31.12.2008. In the instant case, the refund claim was filed on 02.01.2009 which is beyond the permissible time limit as envisaged in the Notification. Both the authorities rejected the refund application.

2. Heard the learned DR for the Revenue and the learned Consultant for the appellant.

3. On a careful consideration of the submissions made by both sides and perusal of the records, I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) while dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee has recorded the following finding:

“5. I have gone through the facts of the case. I find that there is no dispute raised by the department regarding the eligibility or ineligibility thereof in respect of the services on which refund is claimed. The only issue at hand is that of the claim being filed beyond the permissible time limit and rejection of the claim is on this ground. I have gone through the relevant Notification No. 41/2007-ST dated 06.10.2007 which was amended by Notification No. 32/2008 dated 18.11.2008 along with the clarification given in the Circular mentioned above. The appellant had filed the refund claim in respect of exports made during the period from 17.3.2008 to 14.6.2008. The exports made during the month of March ’08 are governed by the period envisaged in the Notification No. 41/2007-ST dated 06.10.2007. In other words, in terms of para 2 (e) of the Notification, the claims in respect of exports made in the month of March ’08 are required to be filed within 60 days from the end of the relevant quarter. For the subsequent exports made during the months of April to June ’08, in terms of clarification given in the Board’s Circular mentioned above, the same are required to be filed by 31.12.2008. In the instant case, the refund claims were filed on 02.01.2009 i.e. beyond the time limit prescribed and hence the same are hit by limitation of time. I agree with the findings of the adjudicating authority with regard to rejection of claim. The reasons put forth by the appellant with regard to filing the claim beyond the permissible time limit are not convincing and in any case, there is no provision under law empowering me to condone the above delay and hence the case laws relied by them are not applicable to this case. In view of the above findings, I pass the following order.

ORDER

The OIO is upheld and the appeal is dismissed.”

I also perused the Notification and the Board’s clarification cited supra. I find that the appellant should have filed the refund claim for the period from March ’08 to June ’08 by 31.12.2008. In the instant case, the refund claim was filed on 2/1/2009. The learned Consultant’s contention is that the marginal delay of 3 days should be condoned. Since there is a delay of three days, it is not within the power of the authorities to condone the delay in filing the refund claim, that too a time limit which is envisaged in the Notification. In view of this, I find that the impugned order is correct and legal and does not require any interference. The appeal is rejected.

(Pronounced and dictated in the court)

More Under Service Tax

Posted Under

Category : Service Tax (3288)
Type : Judiciary (10115)
Tags : Cestat judgments (797)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *