Refund claim delay may be condoned where the notification permits extension and the facts justify the delay.

Under Notification No. 9/2009-S.T., Clause 2(f) permits a refund claim to be filed within six months, or within such extended period as the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner may allow, from the date of actual payment of service tax. Where the claim was filed beyond six months but the delay arose during the initial implementation of the refund procedure and the reasons were found reasonable, condonation of delay was consistent with the notification and the refund remained maintainable. The claim could not be rejected solely as time-barred on those facts.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay in filing the refund claim under the notification could be condoned and the refund allowed.

Analysis: Clause 2(f) of Notification No. 9/2009-S.T. permits filing of the refund claim within six months, or within such extended period as the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner may allow, from the date of actual payment of service tax. The claim was filed beyond six months, but the delay arose in the initial period of implementation of the refund procedure and the circumstances relied upon for the delay were found to be reasonable. The appellate authority's view that the delay deserved to be condoned was held to be consistent with the notification and with the entitlement to refund.

Conclusion: The delay was rightly condoned and the refund claim was maintainable; the Revenue's appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the governing notification itself authorises extension of the filing period, delay in a refund claim may be condoned on justified facts and the claim cannot be rejected solely as time-barred.

---