Order Date – 23 March 2023

Parties: M/s Lupin Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax & Central Excise

Facts –

• The Appellant, M/s Lupin Limited, is engaged in the manufacture and export of pharmaceutical products at their unit in SEZ. Under Notification No. 12/2013-ST dated 01.07.2013, the appellant filed two applications in Form A-4 claiming refund of service tax paid on input services received in SEZ unit for the period January 2017 to March 2017 and April 2017 to June 2017.
• The Refund was rejected being the refund claims are time barred.

Issue –

• Whether the claim for refund of Service tax paid on input services has been filed within the time limit?

Order –

• The Tribunal observed that for the period January to March 2017, Service tax was paid prior to 01.10.2016 and the refund claim was filed on 10.10.2017 and therefore it is beyond the period of one year. Even, if one calculates the actual delay the same appears to be somewhere around 10 days or so. Similarly, for the period April to June, 2016 service tax was paid prior to 01.03.2017 and refund claim was filed on 28.03.2018. In both the cases, the delay is neither exorbitant nor unreasonable which on the face of it cannot be condoned.
• The adjudicating authority should have considered the issue of condonation of delay taking a wider and liberal approach. It is the well established principle that the eligibility criteria laid down in an exemption notification are required to be construed strictly, however once it is found that the applicant satisfies the same, the exemption notification should be construed liberally.
• The Tribunal relied on the case of Formica India Vs. Collector of Central Excise 1995 (77) ELT 511, the Apex Court observed that once a view is taken that a party would have been entitle to the benefit of the notification had they met with the requirements of the concerned rule, the proper course was to permit them to do so rather than denying to them the benefit on the technical grounds that the time when they could have done so had elapsed.
• The refunds are allowed and the impugned order is set aside.