2011 (2) TMI 922 - AT - Service Tax

Tribunal remands service tax refund claim for fresh review under Notification No. 41/07-ST.

The Tribunal set aside the decisions of both the Commissioner (A) and the original authority regarding the refund claim for service tax on export services ... Claim for refund of service tax - Export services - Notification No. 41/07-ST dated 06.10.07 - 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dated 06.10.07, has since been enlarged by Notification No. 17/09 dated 7.7.09, by which Notification No. 41/07 was superseded - Board vide letter F.No. 354/256/09-TRU dated 1.1.10, has also clarified that the extended time limit shall apply in respect of claim of refund relating to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 - Hence, the Commissioner (A) has no power to remand the matter - Therefore 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. Issues:Refund of service tax on export services under Notification No. 41/07-ST, rejection of claim for want of documents, time limit for claiming refund, power of Commissioner (A) to remand the matter.Analysis:The Appellate Tribunal, in this case, dealt with the issue of the claim for refund of service tax paid on export services under Notification No. 41/07-ST. The original authority had rejected the claim on the grounds of lack of relevant documents and filing the claim after the prescribed time limit of six months. Upon appeal, the Commissioner (A) remanded the matter for reconsideration of the rejected part of the claim, while upholding the rejection of the refund as time-barred.The consultant for the appellants argued that the time limit for refund claims had been extended by Notification No. 17/09, which superseded Notification No. 41/07. The Board's clarification further supported the extension of the time limit even for exports made prior to 7.7.09. However, these arguments were not presented before the original authority or the Commissioner (A).On the other hand, the SDR contended that the Commissioner (A) exceeded his authority by remanding part of the claim for reconsideration. It was argued that the original authority should have the opportunity to consider the issues afresh.In its judgment, the Tribunal set aside the orders of both the Commissioner (A) and the original authority. The matter was remitted back to the original authority for fresh consideration, with a directive to provide a reasonable opportunity for the appellants to present their case. Importantly, the Tribunal kept all issues open for further examination.In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision focused on ensuring a fair and thorough reconsideration of the refund claim, taking into account the extended time limit and providing the appellants with an opportunity to substantiate their claim with the necessary documents.