2013 (7) TMI 394 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim on double payment period of limitation - whether assessee would be eligible for claiming refund of service tax when he had mistakably paid the same twice the demand of the assessee is beyond the period of one year - Court relied upon the decision of CCE Pune-III V/s Beharay & Rathi Constructions 2008 (12) TMI 95 - CESTAT MUMBAI - Held that - Service Tax paid when it is not due can be claimed as refund within time limit as prescribed in Section B - the request of the appellant that if the refund cannot be allowed they may be allowed to carry forward the amount as a credit also cannot be accepted as it would virtually amount to refund appeal decided against the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Double payment of Service Tax
- Rejection of refund claim as time-barred
- Applicability of Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944
- Tribunal decisions on correction of arithmetical mistakes and refund claims
- Interpretation of Service Tax payment when not due
- Request for carrying forward the amount as credit

Analysis:

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD addressed the issue of double payment of Service Tax by the appellant, leading to a rejected refund claim as time-barred. The auditors discovered the double payment in October 2008 and December 2008, with the refund claim filed on 17.03.2009 falling beyond the one-year time limit stipulated in Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

The representative of the appellant relied on two Tribunal decisions, namely S. Subrahmanyan & Co. and Hexacom (I) Ltd., to support their case. The Tribunal clarified that arithmetical mistakes can be rectified without a refund claim, as per the decision in S. Subrahmanyan & Co. However, the Tribunal differentiated the case of Hexacom (I) Ltd., emphasizing the applicability of Section 11B for refund when dues are paid, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. The Tribunal also cited the case of Beharay & Rathi Constructions, highlighting that Service Tax paid when not due can be claimed as a refund within the prescribed time limit.

Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, stating that the appellant's request to carry forward the amount as credit could not be accepted as it would essentially amount to a refund. The judgment concluded that the appeal lacked merit and was rejected accordingly.

In summary, the judgment delved into the intricacies of Service Tax payment, refund claims, and the interpretation of relevant legal provisions, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the appeal due to the time-barred nature of the refund claim and the inapplicability of the requested credit carry-forward.