2010 (11) TMI 169 - AT - Service Tax

Refund - time barring - Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 - 100% EOU - it is claimed that they filed the application on 31-3-2008 claiming refund for the period April to June 2007 which was acknowledged in the above manner that the original application was reportedly misplaced by the Department and again they were asked to submit copy of the application which they submitted vide their letter dated 16-2-2009 which was acknowledged on 18-2-2009 again without affixing the signature - the copy of this refund claim which was submitted on 10-2-2009 has also been acknowledged in the same manner just by putting dated stamp of the divisional office without any signature of the person receiving the same - The benefit of doubt therefore has to be given to the appellant - rejection of refund application on the ground of time bar is not sustainable.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection on the grounds of being time-barred due to discrepancies in submission date and acknowledgment process.

Detailed Analysis:
The appellant, a 100% EOU, filed a refund claim under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, for service tax credits used in manufacturing export goods. The Department rejected the claim as time-barred, stating it was received after the prescribed time limit. The appellant argued that the claim was submitted on time, supported by an acknowledgment without a signature. The Commissioner confirmed a practice of acknowledging letters without signatures. The Tribunal directed an investigation into this practice. The Commissioner reported that the claim was not found in the receipt register on the claimed date. The appellant contended that their claim was submitted on time based on the acknowledgment practice. The Departmental Representative argued that the claim was not submitted on the claimed date as per official records.

The Tribunal considered both sides' submissions and reviewed the records. The appellant maintained that their claim was submitted on time, citing the acknowledgment practice in the divisional office. Previous and subsequent claims were acknowledged similarly. The Commissioner's report confirmed the acknowledgment practice without signatures. The Tribunal concluded that the lack of signatures on the acknowledgment did not negate the claim submission on time, considering the established practice. The benefit of doubt was given to the appellant, and the rejection of the refund claim as time-barred was deemed unsustainable. The matter was remanded for further examination and decision on merits by the original adjudicating authority.

This detailed analysis covers the issues surrounding the rejection of the refund claim based on the submission date discrepancy and acknowledgment process, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal judgment.