2017 (3) TMI 421 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - time bar - Section 11B of the CEA read with Section 83 of the FA, 1994 - services related to maintenance of Railway Track - appellant claim that the amount has been paid as Service Tax, when there was no requirement of making such payment to the Government - Held that - The CESTAT is a creature of the statute. The same statute under Section 11B, governs grant of refund of any amount paid as Service Tax. The refund presently has been claimed for an amount of ₹ 8,19,311/-, which has been paid by the appellants as service tax. Consequently, the same can be paid only by way of satisfying Section 11B including that of time limit. The Refund claim in the present case has been filed beyond the time limit specified in Section 11B and consequently, has been rightly rejected in the impugned order - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Claim for refund of Service Tax paid beyond the specified period - Applicability of Section 11B of Central Excise Act - Interpretation of relevant legal provisions and precedents.

Analysis:
The appeal was against the rejection of a refund claim for Service Tax paid erroneously by a Government undertaking for maintenance services provided to a client. The appellant realized the error when the client failed to release payment, prompting the refund claim for the period 01.07.2003 to 15.06.2005. The claim was rejected as time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. The appellant argued that since the tax was not required to be paid, it should be refunded without reference to Section 11B, citing relevant judgments. The Department contended that the refund claim was governed by Section 11B, requiring filing within one year from the relevant date.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the service provided was not taxable until 16.06.2005, covering the period in the refund claim. However, the claim was filed on 12.01.2010, well beyond the one-year limit specified in Section 11B. The appellant's argument, supported by judgments granting refunds beyond time limits, was considered. The Tribunal noted that such decisions were based on extraordinary powers under Article 226, not applicable to statutory bodies like CESTAT. The Tribunal emphasized that the refund claim of ?8,19,311, paid as Service Tax, must comply with Section 11B, including the time limit. As the claim exceeded the specified period, it was rightly rejected.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order, dismissing the appeal. The decision highlighted the statutory nature of CESTAT, governed by Section 11B for refund of Service Tax payments, emphasizing compliance with legal provisions, including time limits. The judgment clarified that extraordinary powers exercised by High Courts and Supreme Court for refunds beyond time limits did not apply to statutory bodies like CESTAT, reinforcing the importance of adhering to statutory provisions for refund claims.