Tribunal overturns refund denial, orders review of compliance with time limits.

M/s. Roop Automotives Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of G.S.T. & Central Excise, Chennai Outer Commissionerate

M/s. Roop Automotives Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of G.S.T. & Central Excise, Chennai Outer Commissionerate - 2019 (370) E.L.T. 1676 (Tri. - Chennai) Issues Involved:
1. Denial of refund under Section 104 of the Finance Act, 2017.
2. Applicability of time-limit for refund claims under Section 104 (3) versus Section 11B.
3. Interpretation of procedural requirements for refund claims.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Denial of Refund under Section 104 of the Finance Act, 2017:
The appellant was allotted and leased an industrial plot by SIPCOT for 99 years, with a one-time development charge collected towards Service Tax. Section 104 of the Finance Act, 2017, introduced a retrospective exemption from taxability on these charges for the period from 01.06.2007 to 01.09.2016. The appellant claimed a refund based on a "no objection" letter from SIPCOT dated 12.09.2017. However, the Department issued a Show Cause Notice on 14.03.2018, proposing to deny the refund as time-barred under Section 104 (3).

2. Applicability of Time-Limit for Refund Claims:
The appellant argued that the refund claim should be governed by Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994, which provides a one-year time limit, rather than the six-month limit under Section 104 (3). The Revenue contended that Section 104 being a special provision, the six-month time limit should prevail. The Tribunal noted that Section 104 starts with a non obstante clause, excluding the charging sections but not the procedural sections. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the time-limit under Section 104 (3) is directory, not mandatory, and the procedural requirements under Section 11B apply.

3. Interpretation of Procedural Requirements for Refund Claims:
The Tribunal emphasized that Section 104 does not prescribe a specific format for refund claims, necessitating reliance on Section 11B for procedural compliance. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's judgment in M/s. JK Jute Mill Mazdoor Morcha Vs. Juggilal Kamlapat Jute Mills Company Ltd., emphasizing that procedural laws are meant to serve justice and should not obstruct it. The Tribunal concluded that the refund application must include all necessary documents and evidences, and the Adjudicating Authority must determine if the application meets the time-limit under Section 11B.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and partly allowed and partly remanded the appeal. The Adjudicating Authority was directed to ascertain if the refund application was within the time-limit prescribed under Section 11B and, if so, to grant the refund with consequential benefits as per law. The order was pronounced in the open court on 17.07.2019.