2016 (4) TMI 328 - AT - Service Tax

Tribunal grants timely refund claims despite procedural issues, criticizes authorities for misinterpretation

Repro India Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur

Repro India Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur - 2016 (43) S.T.R. 203 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues Involved:1. Timeliness of refund claims.2. Procedural deficiencies in the refund applications.3. Enhancement of refund claims during the pendency of the claim.Detailed Analysis:1. Timeliness of Refund Claims:M/s Repro India Ltd. filed refund claims for service tax paid on services used for export for the quarters ending September 2008 and December 2008. The claims were filed on the last permissible days, 31st March 2009 and 30th June 2009, respectively. The Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise rejected these claims as 'time-barred', a decision upheld by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). The Tribunal noted that the original claims were filed within the stipulated deadlines-six months from the end of the relevant quarter, as extended by notification no. 32/2008-ST dated 18th November 2008 and further extended to one year by notification no. 17/2009-ST dated 7th July 2009. The Tribunal found that the claims were timely and should not have been rejected on the grounds of limitation.2. Procedural Deficiencies in the Refund Applications:The refund claims were returned multiple times due to deficiencies, including the format of the application form and the lack of a certificate from a Chartered Accountant, leading to extensive correspondence between the appellant and the jurisdictional Superintendent of Central Excise. The Tribunal observed that the claims were initially filed within the prescribed time and that procedural irregularities should not lead to outright rejection. Citing the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-I v Arya Exports and Industries, the Tribunal emphasized that the Department should have directed the appellant to rectify the deficiencies rather than dismissing the claims. The Tribunal reiterated that the refund claim's validity should be judged from the date of the original filing, even if incomplete.3. Enhancement of Refund Claims During the Pendency of the Claim:The Tribunal addressed the issue of the appellant enhancing the refund claim amounts during the pendency of the claim. It referred to the Tribunal's decision in Premier Tyres Ltd, Kalamassery v Collector of Customs, Madras, which held that if a proper classification results in a larger refund amount than initially claimed, the larger amount should be refunded. The Tribunal found that the enhancement of the claim was permissible and should not be a ground for rejection.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that M/s Repro India Ltd. had filed the refund claims within the deadlines stipulated in the relevant notifications. The extensive correspondence aimed at rectifying deficiencies indicated that the claims were considered timely by the authorities. The Tribunal criticized the lower authorities for rejecting the claims based on an erroneous interpretation of the bar of limitation and emphasized that refund claims should be assessed from the date of the original filing. The Tribunal allowed the appeals, granting the refunds as per the claims.