2017 (5) TMI 522 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - excess deposit of service tax - denial on the ground of time limitation - Section 11B of the CEA, 1944 - Held that - The said statutory provision mandates that an application for refund of duty/service tax shall be filed before the expiry of one year from the relevant date - In this case, the refund application was filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed u/s 11B ibid - In absence of any specific power conferred under the statue empowering the authorities to condone the delay in late submission of refund application, the refund claim filed beyond the period of one year from the date of payment of service tax will be clearly barred by limitation of time - refund rejected - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Claim of refund of excess service tax deposit beyond the limitation period under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1994.

Analysis:
The appeal was against an order by the Commissioner (Appeals) rejecting a refund application for excess service tax deposit. The appellant, registered for providing telecommunication services, claimed refund of ?2,79,033 deposited in March 2010. The appellant argued that the excess amount wasn't a statutory obligation and thus not service tax, citing the Karnataka High Court judgment in Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Bangalore Vs. KVR Construction and a Tribunal order in Hexacom (I) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaipur.

The Department contended that the deposit was under the service tax category, subject to Section 11B time limit for refunds. The refund application filed in May 2011 was beyond the one-year limit from the deposit date, making it time-barred. The Tribunal noted the appellant's deposit into the Central Government Account under a specific service tax category, requiring adherence to Section 11B for refund claims. The absence of statutory power to condone late applications meant the refund claim, filed beyond the one-year limit, was rightfully rejected.

The Tribunal distinguished the Karnataka High Court judgment and the Tribunal order cited by the appellant, noting they dealt with different issues. The High Court held the amount wasn't service tax but a deposit, exempt from Section 11B, while the Tribunal order focused on unjust enrichment, not time limitations. Finding no error in the Commissioner's decision, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal on 26.04.2017.