Tribunal allows appeal, sets aside refund rejection for Tab India Granites, citing timely filing. Remand for further review.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal by M/s. Tab India Granites Pvt. Ltd., setting aside the rejection of their refund claim. The Tribunal held that the refund application was filed within the one-year period specified by Notification No. 17/2009 from the date of export. It was determined that the original filing date, not the resubmission date, should determine the time limit for submitting original documents. The case was remanded to the original authority for a decision on merits within three months from the date of the Tribunal's order.

---

---

Issues:
Refund claim rejection based on time limitation.

Analysis:
The case involves an appeal by M/s. Tab India Granites Pvt. Ltd. against the rejection of their refund claim by the Assistant Commissioner, Hosur-I Division, and subsequent affirmation by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellants manufacture granite slabs and export goods under bond. They filed a refund claim for service tax paid on specified services used for export, as per Notification No. 41/2007-ST. The claim was initially submitted on 07.01.2011, returned on 11.03.2011 for lack of documents, resubmitted on 02.05.2011, and original documents provided on 11.11.2011. The authorities rejected the claim as time-barred due to the delay in submitting original documents.

The appellant's counsel argued that the claim was filed within the one-year period specified by Notification No. 17/2009, despite the delay in submitting original documents caused by the head office's location in Jaipur. They contended that the original submission date should determine the time limit, not the resubmission date. Case laws like CCE, Delhi Vs. M/s. Arya Exports and Industries and Rubberwood India (P) Ltd. Vs. CC, Cochin were cited in support.

The respondent, however, maintained that the claim was rejected due to the absence of original documents and being filed beyond the one-year limit. They highlighted the delayed submission of original documents in November 2011 and cited precedents like CCE, Kanpur Vs. Lohia Machines Ltd. and General Manager, BSNL Vs. CCE, Guntur to support their argument.

After considering both arguments and the legal provisions, the Tribunal found that the refund application was filed within the stipulated one-year period from the date of export. Referring to the case of Rubberwood India (P) Ltd. Vs. CC, Cochin and the amendment under Section 11 B, it was held that the original filing date should determine the time limit. The Tribunal also referenced the decision in the case of Peria Karamalai Tea and Produce Co. Ltd. to support this interpretation. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, remanding the case to the original authority for a decision on merits within three months from the date of receipt of the order. The appeal was allowed by way of remand.

---