2015 (9) TMI 534 - AT - Service Tax

Denial of refund claim - Bar of limitation - Held that - in the present case the date of filing the refund claim electronically, which is 5.7.2012, is to be taken as the date of filing the refund claim and with reference to that date the impugned amount rejected is not barred by time. - for the creatures of the Statute (including the Deputy Commissioner and the CESTAT Tribunal) the time limit prescribed under Section 11B ibid is sacrosanct - even if the Superior Courts in some cases having regard to the specific facts/circumstances ordered refund to be granted ignoring the time limit prescribed under Section 11B ibid, the creatures of Central Excise Act or Customs Act 1962 can not arrogate to themselves similar powers, they remain bound by the boundaries of the statute which created them while the Superior Courts not being creatures of the said statutes are not so bound. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of the time limit for filing refund claims under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. Consideration of electronic filing of refund claims and its impact on the limitation period.
3. Application of legal precedents regarding the time limit for refund claims.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Interpretation of the time limit for filing refund claims under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944:
The appellants contested the rejection of their refund claim amounting to Rs. 9,99,531/- as time-barred under Section 11B. They argued that the amount deposited was not service tax and hence, the time limit should not apply. However, the judgment emphasized that the statutory time limit under Section 11B is crucial for adjudicating refund cases, as established by legal precedents such as Mafatlal Industries Vs. Union of India. The judgment reiterated that authorities, including CESTAT, are bound by the statutory time limits for refund claims.

Issue 2: Consideration of electronic filing of refund claims and its impact on the limitation period:
The appellants filed their refund claim electronically on 5.7.2012, but the adjudicating authority considered the date of submission of necessary documents as the filing date, leading to the rejection of a portion of the claim as time-barred. The judgment analyzed the electronic submission made by the appellants and referred to legal precedents like M/s NCS Pearson India Private Ltd. case, emphasizing that the initial electronic filing date is crucial for determining the limitation period. It was held that the date of electronic filing, i.e., 5.7.2012, should be the reference point for assessing the timeliness of the refund claim.

Issue 3: Application of legal precedents regarding the time limit for refund claims:
The judgment cited legal precedents like Angiplast Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Ahmedabad and highlighted the relevance of the initial filing date for determining the timeliness of refund claims. Referring to these precedents, the judgment concluded that in the present case, the date of electronic filing should be considered as the date of filing the refund claim. The judgment underscored that the statutory time limit under Section 11B must be adhered to by the authorities, even if superior courts have, in some instances, granted refunds beyond the prescribed period.

In conclusion, the judgment allowed the appeal, directing the primary adjudicating authority to process the refund claim based on the electronic filing date of 5.7.2012. The decision emphasized the significance of adhering to the statutory time limits for refund claims, as mandated under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and underscored the binding nature of legal precedents in interpreting such provisions.