Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2022 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (11) TMI 799 - AT - Service TaxRefund claim - time limitation - rejected as time-barred stating that the refund claims have been filed beyond the period of one year as envisaged under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD THAT:- The rejection of refund claims as time-barred by ignoring the date of initial filing of the claim is not sustainable. The Tribunal in the case of REPRO INDIA LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BELAPUR [2016 (4) TMI 328 - CESTAT MUMBAI] had analyzed the similar issue and held that when claim has been returned for rectifying the deficiencies the claim cannot be held to be time-barred by computing the period of one year from the date of resubmitting the claim. The Principal Bench of the Tribunal in the case of COMMR. OF C. EX., INDORE VERSUS NATIONAL STEEL & AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD. [2015 (11) TMI 1575 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] held that if the claim is initially filed within time, the resubmission of claim has to be considered in continuation of the earlier claim and cannot be held to be time-barred. In the present case, when the period of one year is computed from the date of initial filing of the claim, the claims are made well within time. The date of initial submission of the refund claim is 10.07.2015, 10.07.2015, 01.09.2015 - In regard to the claim for July 2014-September 2014 it is seen that when computed from the last month of the quarter, the claim is filed well within time. The claim has been held to be time-barred computing the period of one year from the first month of the quarter. When the notification prescribes to file the refund claim for a quarter, the entire quarter has to be considered as a whole, without splitting each month. The appellant is eligible to get refund of unutilized credit of every month. The procedure to file refund claim for a quarter is only to make the filing and processing easier. It is noted in the impugned order as well as the order passed by the original authority that the appellant has not furnished E.R.2 returns and other necessary documents for processing the refund claims - matter requires to be remanded to the original authority for processing the refund claims after giving an opportunity to the appellant to furnish the required documents - Appeal allowed by way of remand.
|