2008 (12) TMI 95 - AT - Service Tax

Recipients of Goods Transport Agency services - service tax paid for the period from 1- 1-2005 to 31-3-2005 by availing abatement of 25 % instead of 75 % of the gross amount under Notification No.32 /2004-ST and 1/2006-ST refund claim filed on 4-7-2006 of the tax paid on 6-4-2005, is beyond one year from the relevant date held that refund claim is time barred in terms of secytion11B of the CEA, 1944 as applicable to service tax matters vide section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994

Summary

Issues Involved:
- Time-barred refund claim under section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
- Applicability of case laws in determining the validity of the refund claim.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Time-barred refund claim under section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944

The case revolves around the issue of a refund claim filed by the respondents for excess service tax payment, which was deemed time-barred under section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The respondents had paid service tax for 'Goods Transport Agency' services but filed a refund claim beyond the one-year limit from the date of payment, leading to a show-cause notice being issued. The Deputy Commissioner rejected the refund claim based on time-bar, which was upheld by the Technical Member. The Technical Member emphasized that the provisions of section 11B apply to service tax matters as per section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. The relevant date for the refund claim was the date of payment of service tax, and since the claim was filed after one year from this date, it was considered time-barred.

Issue 2: Applicability of case laws in determining the validity of the refund claim

The Commissioner (Appeals) had allowed the respondents' appeal, citing various case laws to support their decision. However, the Technical Member disagreed with the Commissioner's reliance on these case laws, stating that they pertained to a period before the amendment of section 11B in 1991. The Technical Member highlighted the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd., which emphasized the importance of following the statutory time-limit for refund claims. The Technical Member also referred to subsequent Supreme Court judgments affirming the limitations prescribed under section 11B. Additionally, the Technical Member mentioned a Delhi High Court case emphasizing the need to follow statutory provisions for refund claims, even in cases of erroneous levy. Ultimately, the Technical Member concluded that the Commissioner's decision was not sustainable, setting aside the Order passed by the Commissioner and restoring the Order-in-Original rejecting the refund claim.

In conclusion, the appeal filed by the revenue was allowed, emphasizing the strict adherence to statutory provisions regarding refund claims and the limitations prescribed under section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.