Case Law Details
Ld. Consultant for the appellants submits that the time limit for preferring refund claim prescribed under Notification No. 41/07 dated 06.10.07, has since been enlarged by Notification No. 17/09 dated 7.7.09, by which Notification No. 41/07 was superseded. Board vide letter F.No. 354/256/09-TRU dated 1.1.10, has also clarified that the extended time limit shall apply in respect of claim of refund relating to exports made prior to 7.7.09 also.
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI
ST/39/2011
Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.135/2010-ST (SLM) Dated: 19.10.2010
Passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Salem
Date of Decision: 24.02.2011
M/s ITC LTD
Vs
CCE, SALEM
CORAM: M Veeraiyan, Member (T)
FINAL ORDER NO.353/2011
Per: M Veeraiyan:
Heard both sides.
2. The original authority rejected the claim of refund of service tax paid on the export services claimed by the appellants, in terms of Notification No. 41/07-ST dated 06.10.07, on the ground that part of the claim was not substantiated with relevant documents and part of the claim has been filed after the period six months prescribed for claiming the refund in terms of the said Notification. On appeal by the party, the Commissioner (A) has remanded the matter to reconsider the claim relating to that part of the claim which was rejected for want of documents giving an opportunity to the appellants to produce the documents before the original authority. The Commissioner (A) upheld the order of the original authority rejecting refund of Rs.30,070/- as time barred.
3. Ld. Consultant for the appellants submits that the time limit for preferring refund claim prescribed under Notification No. 41/07 dated 06.10.07, has since been enlarged by Notification No. 17/09 dated 7.7.09, by which Notification No. 41/07 was superseded. Board vide letter F.No. 354/256/09-TRU dated 1.1.10, has also clarified that the extended time limit shall apply in respect of claim of refund relating to exports made prior to 7.7.09 also. He fairly concedes that these submissions were not made before the original authority and the Commissioner (A).
4. The Ld. SDR submits that part of the claim has been directed to be to be reconsidered by the original authority in terms of the order of the Commissioner (A). The Commissioner (A) has no power to remand the matter. Therefore, the issue raised now in the present appeal can also be considered afresh by the original authority.
5. In view of the above, the order of the Commissioner (A) and the order of the original authority are set aside and the entire matter remitted back to the original authority for fresh consideration, after granting reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellants. All issues are kept open.
(Order pronounced and dictated in the open Court)
