2017 (3) TMI 424 - HC - Service Tax

Refund claim - time limitation - Section 11B of the CEA r/w Section 83 of Chapter V of FA, 1994 - Held that - refund application was made on 19.08.2016 i.e. after a period of almost two years and six months. As per Section 11B of the CEA, 1944 r/w Section 83 of Chapter V of FA, 1994, the refund application is required to be made within a period of one year from the relevant date described u/s 11B of the CEA. The adjudicating authority has no jurisdiction to condone the delay and / or grant refund if the refund application is not made within the period of one year. No power of condonation of delay are vested with adjudicating authority - it cannot be said that adjudicating authority has committed any error in rejecting the refund claim - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.

Issues:
1. Petition to quash an Order in Original rejecting a refund of service tax.
2. Rejection based on limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act.
3. Argument for condonation of delay and consideration of refund claim on merits.
4. Jurisdiction of adjudicating authority to condone delay in filing refund application.
5. Application of statutory provisions and limitation period under Section 11B.
6. Explanation for delay in filing refund application.
7. Reliance on previous court decisions for granting relief.
8. Dismissal of the petition.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner sought to quash an Order in Original rejecting a refund claim of service tax. The claim was for service tax paid during FY 2013-14. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the claim citing limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act.

2. The petitioner argued for condonation of delay in filing the refund application, stating that they paid the service tax under a mistaken belief of liability. Despite later realizing the error, the refund claim was submitted after a significant delay of over two years.

3. The adjudicating authority has no power to condone the delay beyond the statutory limitation period. The petitioner's argument that the delay should be overlooked due to the mistaken payment of service tax was not accepted as the delay was significant and remained unexplained.

4. The petitioner's plea for the adjudicating authority to consider the refund claim on its merits without considering the limitation was rejected. Granting such relief would go against the statutory provisions of Section 11B of the Act.

5. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the limitation period prescribed under the law. The delay in filing the refund application, even after the petitioner became aware that service tax was not applicable for the specific work, was considered unreasonable and not justified.

6. Previous court decisions cited by the petitioner were deemed inapplicable to the present case due to the significant delay in filing the refund claim. The court highlighted that the delay of over two years and two months remained unexplained.

7. Ultimately, the petition was dismissed as it failed to provide sufficient grounds for condoning the delay and granting the requested relief. The court upheld the rejection of the refund claim based on the statutory provisions and the significant unexplained delay in filing the application.

8. The judgment concluded by dismissing the petition, emphasizing the importance of adhering to statutory provisions and the limitation period prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act.

← Previous Next →