TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (4) TMI 328
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... December 2008 were rejected as 'time-barred' by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur. Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai - III concurred with this finding and hence these appeals have been filed by M/s Repro India Ltd. before us. The issues being common, we take up both appeals for disposal by a common order. 2. There is no dispute that the appellant had exported the printed books for which the exemption was claimed. From the circumstances and records placed before us, it would appear that there is also no dispute that tax has been paid on the services that were utilized in the production and the export of goods. The disputes pertain entirely and solely to adherence to the deadlines stipulated in the notification supra. 3. For the sake of a clearer elucidation of the issue, the notification is reproduced: GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MIISTRY OF FINANCE (Department of Revenue) New Delhi, the 6th October, 2007 Notification No. 41/2007-Service Tax G.S.R. (E) In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 93 of the Finance Act, 1994 (32 of 1994) and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of F....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l be claimed by that person; (b) the exporter shall claim the exemption by filing a claim for refund of service tax paid on specified services: Provided that- (i) the manufacturer-exporter of the said goods shall file the claim for refund to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, having jurisdiction over the factory of manufacture or warehouse, and (ii) the exporter, other than a manufacturer-exporter, shall file the claim for refund to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, having jurisdiction over the registered office or the head office, as the case may be, of such exporter; (c) the exporter who is not registered as an assessee under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944) or the rules made thereunder, or the said Finance Act or the rules made thereunder, shall, prior to filing a claim for refund of service tax under this notification, file a declaration in the Form annexed hereto with the respective jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be; (d) the ju....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er ending December 2008 was filed on 30 th June 2009. That these two claims were filed on the very last permissible day is not in doubt and there is no dispute about receipt of these claims in the jurisdictional office. 6. Thereafter, on grounds of insufficiency of supporting evidence, both these claims were returned to the applicant on more than one occasion with re-submissions thereon after a lapse of time. Voluminous correspondence between the applicant and the jurisdictional Superintendent of Central Excise is also noticed in the records. The quantum in the claims also appeared to have been revised during this period of correspondence. Ultimately, separate show cause notices for rejection of the refund claim of the two quarters were issued on 6 th May 2011. 7. Interestingly, the show cause notices insisted upon conclusion of proceeding by 22 nd May 2011 apparently motivated by the belief that interest liability, as prescribed in section 11BB of Central Excise Act, 1944, would devolve. We consider it to be interesting because the refunds claims were finally lodged for the last time on 22 nd February 2011 and 28 th February 2011 respectively and the jurisdictional Deputy Commis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....disposal by the first appellate authority. 12. We are constrained to make such an observation because the law on this aspect is well-settled. That the appellant is an exporter whose prices, in accordance with well-entrenched policy, are not to be loaded with the tax element should have been sufficient cause to demonstrate judiciousness in disposing off the claims. 13. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has, in Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-I v Arya Exports and Industries [2005 (192) ELT 89 (Del), held: '4..... The assessee had filed an application under Rule 57F94) for refund of the excise duty wrongly recovered from him. This application was declined on the ground that that it was not made in the prescribed form and necessary documents were not annexed thereto. Thereafter another application was filed by the assessee which again was dismissed being beyond the period of limitation. and citing the relevant portion of the impugned order of this Tribunal ....... The refund claim cannot be denied to them merely on the ground that the same was not filed in the prescribed form. If the refund claim has not been filed on proper form or without necessary documents the Dep....