9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Imposition of penalties under Section 78 of the Act. 2. Rejection of refund claim on grounds of being time-barred and unjust enrichment. Imposition of Penalties: The appellant received a show cause notice demanding Service Tax for a specific period, which was later confirmed under management, maintenance, or repair service (MMR). The original demand was reduced from the notice amount. The order was challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding penalties. The penalty under Section 78 of the Act was set aside, and a reduced penalty of &8377; 1000 was upheld. Rejection of Refund Claim: A refund claim was filed by the appellant, which was rejected as time-barred and on grounds of unjust enrichment. The Revenue argued that the claim should have been filed within one year from the dates of payment made by the appellant. The appellant cited previous cases to support their position, emphasizing that deposits made should be treated as paid under protest. However, the Revenue contended that these cases were rendered before the relevant amendment to Section 11B. The Tribunal held that the time limit under Section 11B would be applicable for deposits made during proceedings and subsequent refund claims filed after the Tribunal's decision. The Tribunal considered the arguments from both parties. It clarified that the limitation of one year for refund claims applies to decisions of appellate authorities or courts in favor of the appellant, excluding the adjudicating authority. The relevant date for filing refund claims beyond decisions of appellate authorities is calculated from the date of payment of duty. Since the appellant's refund claim was filed beyond the prescribed limitation period under Section 11B, and the Tribunal cannot exceed statutory provisions, the appeal was rejected.
|
