2013 (5) TMI 563 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim rejected - Time barred u/s 11B - Appellant erroneously paid service tax on rents received from the Central Excise Department for their finding, which is exempted from Service Tax. As per appellant this is a mere deposit and it cannot be treated as tax and therefore the limitation prescribed u/s 11B of the Central Excise Act would not apply - Held that - Following the case of Natraj and Venkat Associates Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Service Tax 2009 (10) TMI 36 - MADRAS HIGH COURT power of the Central Excise officers is confined within the statute of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Hence, both the authorities have rightly rejected the refund claim which is beyond the stipulated period. Thus, appeal is rejected.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against rejection of refund claim as time-barred.

Analysis:
The appellant appealed against the rejection of a refund claim of Rs.1,41,524 as time-barred. The counsel argued that the service tax paid on rents received from the Central Excise Department was exempted from Service Tax as it was a mere deposit, not tax. The refund claim was filed on 24.2.2009 but was rejected for the period before 24.2.2008, citing the limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. The counsel relied on decisions of the Hon'ble Madras and Karnataka High Courts, along with Tribunal decisions. The AR contended that authorities under the Finance Act, 1994 are bound by its provisions, and the lower authorities rightly rejected the refund claim following Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. The AR cited relevant legal precedents supporting this stance.

The judgment noted that authorities functioning under the Act are bound by its provisions. The Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in a relevant case highlighted the importance of adhering to the statutory provisions and limitation periods for refund claims. The Court emphasized that if proceedings are initiated under the Act, the prescribed limitations will apply. The judgment discussed the distinction between claims made before departmental authorities and seeking alternative remedies for mistakes of law. The Court referenced a previous Tribunal decision and observations on the Customs Authorities' actions under the Act. The judgment upheld the view that the Central Excise officers' powers are confined within the Central Excise Act, 1944, and supported the rejection of the refund claim due to exceeding the stipulated period.

In conclusion, the judgment rejected the appeal filed by the appellant, emphasizing that the authorities had rightly rejected the refund claim beyond the prescribed period. The judgment highlighted the limitations on the powers of Central Excise officers and the binding nature of statutory provisions. The decision underscored the importance of adhering to the statutory framework in such matters, ultimately affirming the rejection of the refund claim.