2017 (10) TMI 849 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - time limitation - reverse charge mechanism - 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 impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same is contrary to the decisions of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Anam Electrical Manaufacturing Co. 1997 (1) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA , where it was 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 allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Refund claim of service tax filed beyond the prescribed statutory period
- Interpretation of the limitation period for filing refund claims
- Applicability of judicial precedents on refund claims

Analysis:
1. Refund claim filed beyond the prescribed statutory period:
The case involved a dispute regarding a refund claim of service tax filed by the respondent after the prescribed statutory period. The Revenue contended that the refund application was time-barred as it was filed after the period up to which the service tax had been paid. The AR for the Revenue argued that the High Court precedent and Supreme Court judgment established that refund claims filed beyond the statutory period could not be entertained unless due to a declaration of a provision as unconstitutional. The Tribunal noted the Revenue's reliance on judicial precedents to support their argument.

2. Interpretation of the limitation period for filing refund claims:
The central issue in the case was whether a refund claim for service tax, filed after the limitation period, should be sanctioned. The respondent argued that the limitation period should not apply in cases where the payment of service tax was a mistake. On the other hand, the Revenue contended that the Tribunal, bound by statutory provisions, could not extend the limitation period for refund claims. The AR for the Revenue referred to a Supreme Court decision emphasizing the applicability of statutory time limits even to claims for illegal levies.

3. Applicability of judicial precedents on refund claims:
The Tribunal considered various judicial precedents cited by both parties to support their arguments. The respondent's counsel referenced decisions from the High Court and Supreme Court which supported the respondent's position regarding the refund claim. However, the Tribunal ultimately found that the impugned order was not sustainable in law as it contradicted the decisions of the Supreme Court and the High Court, leading to the appeal of the Revenue being allowed.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal of the Revenue, emphasizing the importance of adhering to statutory provisions and established judicial precedents in matters concerning refund claims of service tax.