2011 (5) TMI 407 - AT - Service Tax

Appellate Tribunal Upholds Rejection of Service Tax Refund Claim

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad upheld the rejection of a merchant manufacturer's service tax refund claim for services used in exporting goods. ... Limitation - Refund Claim - Services received for export of the goods - The authorities refused to accept the refund claim on the ground that it is not clear as to where the same is to be filed. It was only subsequently that the situation became clear vide trade notice No. 04/2008 dated 14.05.2008 and refund claim for the quarter ending December 2007 was submitted on 29.05.2008. As such, they have contended that the claim should not be considered as time barred, as they had originally presented the same to the authorities on 18.01.2008 and who refused to accept the same. - held that:- appellants has not been able to show any evidence on record to reflect upon to the fact of refund claim originally filed on 18.01.2008. He has fairly agreed that there is no correspondence or any evidence to substantiate their above claim. If that be so, findings of the authorities below that the same seems to be an after thought to cover up the delay, cannot be faulted upon. - Decided against the assessee. Issues:Refund of service tax paid on services received for export of goods; Rejection of refund claim on the grounds of time bar; Dispute regarding submission date of refund claim; Acceptance of refund claim by the department.Analysis:The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad revolves around the dispute concerning the refund of service tax paid by a merchant manufacturer for services received for the export of goods. The appellant's refund claim for the quarter ending December 2007 was rejected by the authorities below citing time bar issues, as the claim was submitted on 29.05.2008, beyond the normal 60-day period, thus considered barred by limitation.The appellant argued that they had prepared the refund claim in January 2008 and submitted it to the department at a specific location in Ahmedabad. However, the authorities refused to accept the claim, stating ambiguity regarding the submission location. The situation only became clear later through a trade notice issued on 14.05.2008, leading to the submission of the refund claim on 29.05.2008. The appellant contended that the claim should not be time-barred as they had initially presented it on 18.01.2008, which was refused by the authorities.The Commissioner (Appeal) did not accept the appellant's contentions, emphasizing that the appellant's claims of repeated attempts to submit the claim within the time limit were not supported by documentary evidence. The Commissioner found the appellant's argument to be an afterthought to cover up the delay and affirmed the decision of the adjudicating authority, stating that there was no infirmity in the impugned order.During the proceedings, the appellant's Chartered Accountant failed to provide any evidence on record to support the claim of the original submission of the refund claim on 18.01.2008. It was acknowledged that there was no correspondence or evidence to substantiate this claim. The appellate authority highlighted that the appellant could have sent the claim through registered post or filed it at a receipt department/counter in the office. The plea that the claim was presented on 18.01.2008 but not accepted was deemed invalid, and the appeal was rejected based on the lack of evidence and the procedural options available for submitting the claim.This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the key issues of the case, including the rejection of the refund claim on time bar grounds, the dispute over the submission date, and the lack of supporting evidence for the appellant's contentions, leading to the dismissal of the appeal by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad.