9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (10) TMI 809 - AT - Service TaxRefund claim - service tax paid on late payment charges collected from the customers - mistake of law - rejection on the ground of time bar and unjust enrichment - Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - whether the refund claim of service tax filed by the assessee after the period of limitation prescribed under the law is to be sanctioned or not, without raising the issue of limitation? - Held that - the Supreme Court in the case of Asst. Collector Vs. Anam Electrical Manufacturing 1997 (1) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA held that statutory time limit is applicable to claim for refund of even illegal levies and time limit cannot be extended by any authority - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
Issues:
Refund claim rejection on grounds of limitation and unjust enrichment. Analysis: The appellant, a service provider, sought a refund of service tax paid on late payment charges collected from customers. The claim was rejected citing limitation and lack of evidence for unjust enrichment. The Commissioner(Appeals) partially allowed the appeal, remanding part of the claim for fresh decision. The appellant challenged the rejection post-29/09/2010. The appellant argued that mistaken payment exempts the claim from limitation, citing legal precedents. The AR defended the order, citing Section 11B applicability and legal precedents like the Mafatlal case. The Tribunal upheld the order, emphasizing adherence to statutory limitations, as per the Anam Electrical Manufacturing case. The key issue was whether a service tax refund claim, filed beyond the statutory limit, should be approved. The appellant contended that mistaken payment exempts the claim from limitation, while the AR argued for adherence to statutory limits. The Tribunal, citing the Anam Electrical Manufacturing case, upheld the order, emphasizing the importance of statutory time limits even for illegal levies. The legal precedents cited by both parties were considered, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
|
