2011 (9) TMI 465 - AT - Service Tax

Period of Limitation - Refund claim after 4 years - Held That - Limitation prescribed by newly enacted provision is to bar belated claims. Parties should exercise their right without delay. In absence of any evidence on record to appreciate that the appellant was prevented to make refund claim for reasons beyond its control, the appellant has no claim to sustain. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of refund application due to delay in filing after successful outcome in High Court.
2. Interpretation of limitation period for refund claims under Central Excise Act, 1944.
3. Consideration of protest requirement for belated refund claims.

Analysis:
1. The appellant's refund application was denied by the first appellate order due to a significant delay in filing. The appellant had succeeded before the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad on 11.3.2005, but the refund application was filed on 12.2.2009, leading to the denial of the claim. The appellant argued that similar relief had been granted in other cases by different authorities, emphasizing that the limitation clause was incorporated later in the law. However, the Tribunal noted that the appellant remained silent for four years after the High Court's decision, failing to make the claim within a reasonable period. The Tribunal highlighted that the right to claim refund should be exercised promptly once the legal dispute is resolved, and the limitation period aims to prevent belated claims without valid reasons. As there was no evidence to show any hindrance preventing the appellant from filing the claim in a timely manner, the appeal was dismissed.

2. The Tribunal considered the interpretation of the limitation period for refund claims under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant's argument that the limitation clause was added later in the law was acknowledged, but it was emphasized that the right to claim refund should be enforced within a reasonable period once the legal dispute is settled. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of the law of limitation in ensuring peace and prompt resolution of legal matters. The appellant's delay in filing the refund claim after a favorable outcome in the High Court was deemed unreasonable, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

3. The Tribunal also addressed the requirement of protest for belated refund claims. The appellant's mention of 'protest' in a challan was deemed insufficient to justify the belated refund claim. The Tribunal noted that contesting a matter before the High Court could be seen as a form of protest, but it emphasized that the claim should have been made promptly or within a reasonable period after the court's decision. The lack of evidence showing any valid reason for the delay in filing the claim led to the dismissal of the appeal. The Tribunal concluded that without a valid justification for the delay, the appellant had no claim to sustain, and the appeal was accordingly dismissed.