Computation of time limit for refund claim.

PJ/CASE LAW/2014-15/2486

Case:-M/s PAUL MASON CONSULTING INDIA PVT LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX, VADODARA

Citation:-2015-TIOL-107-CESTAT-AHM

Brief Facts:-This COD application and appeals are filed by the appellant with respect to OIA No. PA/344345/VDRI/2012 dated 26.10.2012. Only one appeal no . ST/10193/2013 was filed by the appellant with respect to OIA dated 26.10.2012 which covered two orders in original passed by the Adjudicating authority. As per CESTAT procedure and Practice two appeals were required to be filed by the appellant and the present COD applications and appeals were filed. Appellant has filed two supplementary appeals whereas only one more appeal was required to be filed. Accordingly, Shri Manish Bani (Chartered Accountant) requested for withdrawal of COD application No . ST/COD/15743/2014 and Appeal No. 13166/2014 which is allowed. The other COD application No. ST/COD/15742/2014 is allowed. As the earlier appeal No . ST/10193/2013 is also listed for hearing, therefore, both these appeals are taken up for disposal.

Appellant’s Contention:-Shri Manish Bani (Chartered Accountant) appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that refund claim was filed within one year from the quarter for which the goods were exported. He relied upon DO F. No. 334/13/2009TRU dated 06.7.2009 issued by CBEC to argue that refund claim was filed within the prescribed time. Learned Chartered Accountant also filed written submissions earlier raising certain issues.

Respondent’s Contention:-Shri G.P. Thomas (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue argued that while filing the appeals appellant has not given their pleadings in the grounds of appeal. It was his argument that on time bar issue, appellant argued before the first appellate authority to condone the delay in filing of refund claim.

Reasoning of Judgment:-Heard both sides and perused the case records. The issue involved in these proceedings is rejection of refund claim of the appellant as time barred and receipt of payment in Indian Currency read with Rule 3(2 )( b) of the Export of Service Rules, 2005. First appellate authority has dismissed the appeals of the appellant on the grounds of time bar only. Appellant has now brought out CBEC Circular dated 06.7.2009 to argue that one year period will start from the quarter ending as per exemption notification. These aspects were not raised before the first appellate authority. As the arguments taken by the appellant during hearing and as per their written submission received on 24.7.2014 were not argued before the first appellate authority, therefore, the case is required to be remanded back to the first appellate authority. Appellant should raise all the issues before the first appellate authority and Commissioner (Appeals) should dispose of the appeals considering all the issues raised by the appellant during the course of the hearing. Needless to say that first appellate authority will extend an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant before deciding the matter in remand proceedings.
In view of the above, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed by way of remand to the first appellate authority.

Decision:-Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Comment:-The substance of this case is that the refund claim was rejected on the grounds of time bar whereas attention was drawn towards CBEC Circular dated 06.7.2009 to argue that one year period will start from the quarter ending as per exemption notification. Therefore, in order to ensure that the submissions of the appellant are considered, the appeal was allowed by way of remand.

Prepared by:- Somya Jain

Comments

PJ/CASE LAW/2014-15/2486

Post a Comment

Query