COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, VADODARA Vs. SHANKAR PACKAGING LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent submitted three refund claims for refund and Service Tax paid on taxable services received and used in connection with the export of goods for the quarters from April 2008 to September 2008 with the Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax Cell, Vadodara -2. The Assistant Commissioner, Service Tax Cell, Vadodara -2 transferred the claims to Assistant Commissioner, Vadodara -2 on 29 -4 -2009. These claims had been initially filed before the Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax Division Mumbai. The claim for the quarter ending March 2008 had been filed on 27 -5 -2008, claim for the quarter ending September 2008 had been filed on 28 -11 -2008. Both these claims were subsequently transferred to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner via Assistant Commissioner, Service Tax Cell, Vadodara -2. The claims were originally rejected on the ground that they were received in the office of the refund sanctioning authority beyond the time limit prescribed under Notification No. 41/2007. On an appeal filed by the respondent, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the refund claims and held that they were not time -barred. Revenue is in appeal.

(2.) HEARD both the sides.

(3.) I find considerable force in the arguments advanced by the ld. counsel for the respondents that the respondents entertained a bona fide belief that the claim has to be filed before the Assistant Commissioner in Mumbai since their head office was located in Mumbai. Moreover, during the relevant time the notification was still being implemented and respondents were new to the system. Further, I also find that his reliance on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Rajdhani Impex Pvt. Ltd. - 2007 (214) E.L.T. 64 (Tri. - Mum.) is relevant. In this decision it was held that a party when prosecutes the case before wrong forum under a bona fide belief, the period spend therein would be excluded for limitation. In view of the decision cited above and in the facts and circumstances of this case, I do not find that there is need to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the Revenue are rejected and cross -objections also get disposed of.