Dept Cannot Consider Refund Claim Unless It Specifies Which Notification And Provision It Has Been Sought Under: CESTAT

The Ahmedabad Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that the department cannot consider a refund claim unless it is specified under which notification and provision the same has been sought. The Bench of Somesh Arora (Judicial) has observed that, “The lapse of non-filing of refund under proper notification separately for June 2013 cannot be termed as mere procedural lapse. The department cannot be expected to consider refund claim if it is not indicated to them as to under which notification and provisions same has been sought.” In this case, the assessee was denied of the refund claim of which they were eligible under the Notification No. 40/2012-ST for the month of June 2013. However, the assessee received refund for the period July to September 2013 under Notification No. 12/2013-ST dated 1st July 2013 but refund for the 4th month filed by them for the period of June 2013 was not allowed to them. The assessee contended that they are entitled to claim refund for supply as they were eligible under the said notification. Thus, it is only a procedural lapse and should not have led to denial of substantive benefit of refund to them. Whereas it was contended by the department that the Notification No. 12/2013-ST came into effect only from 1st July 2013 and could not be applied for the month of June 2013 as it was of a prior date from coming into force of the notification. The Tribunal observed that the lapse of non-filing of refund under proper notification separately for June 2013 cannot be termed as mere procedural lapse. Therefore, the lapse is not merely procedural but substantive emanating from statutory provisions. “Even if, stand of the party that it was otherwise entitled to benefit even for June 2013 under a separate Notification No. 40/2012-ST is considered correct then ideally, they should have filed a separate claim to be considered as per terms and conditions of that notification. Same is clearly a lapse which cannot be termed as mere procedural lapse since the requirement to file refund claim as per the statutory provision, under Finance Act, 1994 (as per borrowed provision from central Excise Act, 1944 of Section 11B) is a requirement having its own ramifications of limitation and fulfilment of conditions of Notification No. 40/2012-ST,” added the bench. In view of the above, the Tribunal rejected the appeal. Counsel for Appellant/ Assessee: Bharat Mathur Counsel for Respondent/ Department: A.R. Kanani Case Title: Rallis India Limited v. C.C.E-Bharuch Case Number: Service Appeal No 11894 of 2016 - SM Click Here To Read/Download The Order

Dept Cannot Consider Refund Claim Unless It Specifies Which Notification And Provision It Has Been Sought Under: CESTAT

Mehak Dhiman

Tags