2008 (8) TMI 229 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim filed on 27-2-2004 of tax paid in excess during the period from October, 2000 to November, 2002 - appellant s contention that refund in respect of duty paid in excess cannot be considered as refund of duty, not acceptable held that all types of refund claim be thereof excess duty paid or otherwise are to be filed under Section 11B - in terms of provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act (as applicable to Service tax), refund claim is hit by the time limit appeal of assessee rejected

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection based on time limit under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal arising from the rejection of a refund claim in respect of tax paid in excess during a specific period. The appellant, a PSU Unit, filed the refund application after the expiry of one year from the date of payment of Service tax. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the claim citing Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, which prescribes a time limit for filing refund claims. The appellant argued that their claim was sustainable, but the learned SDR relied on a Larger Bench judgment in a similar case to support the time-bar application. The Tribunal noted that the Larger Bench decision clarified that all types of refund claims, including excess duty paid, must comply with Section 11B and the doctrine of unjust enrichment. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the rejection of the refund claim based on the time-bar issue.

In the detailed analysis, the Tribunal emphasized that there is no provision under the Central Excise Act allowing for the suo motu taking of credit or refund without proper officer sanction. The decision highlighted that any correction in accounts related to duty payment requires departmental approval. Refunds, whether for excess duty paid or other reasons, must adhere to Section 11B and prove non-passing of duty incidence to others. Citing Supreme Court decisions, the Tribunal underscored the requirement for all refund types to pass through the doctrine of unjust enrichment, even if not explicitly stated in the statute. The Tribunal concluded that the time-bar issue regarding refund claims had been settled by the Larger Bench, and the decision was applicable to the case at hand. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the appeal, following the precedent set by the cited order.

Overall, the judgment focused on the application of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act concerning the time limit for filing refund claims and the necessity to prove non-passing of duty incidence for all types of refunds. The decision underscored the importance of departmental approval for any corrections related to duty payments and highlighted the significance of adhering to established legal principles and precedents in matters of refund claims.