2018 (2) TMI 1447 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of service tax - rejection on the ground of time limitation - Section 11 B of the Central Excise Act 1944 - Held that - The statutory provisions contained in Section 11 B ibid provides the time limit of one year for filing the refund application - In this case as per the explanation (B) (f) appended to Section 11 B the relevant date should be reckoned from the date of payment of the Service Tax. Since the refund application was filed by the appellant beyond one year from such relevant date as per the mandates of Section 11 B the refund application is clearly barred by limitation of time - The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Doaba Co-operative Sugar Mills 1988 (8) TMI 103 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA held that if proceedings have been taken under the statue by the Department the provision of limitation prescribed under that statute will alone prevail with regard to applicability of the time limit for filing the refund claim. The amount now claimed as refund has been deposited to Government account as service tax. Return of such amount is prayed for with the service tax Department under the provisions of Finance Act 1994 read with Section 11 B of Central Excise Act 1944. The authority examining the said claim is bound by the legal provisions of these Acts in discharging his duties. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Rejection of refund claim based on limitation period under Section 11 B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed a refund claim for Service Tax paid prior to 11.11.2006, beyond the one-year time frame from the relevant date, leading to rejection based on Section 11 B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

2. The appellant argued that the time limit under Section 11 B should not apply as they were not liable to pay the tax and cited various judgments supporting their stance.

3. The Revenue contended that the time limit must be strictly adhered to for refund applications under Section 11 B, citing Supreme Court judgments emphasizing adherence to statutory provisions by authorities.

4. The Tribunal heard both sides and reviewed the records to determine the validity of the refund claim rejection.

5. The Tribunal noted that the refund claim was filed beyond the one-year limit as per Section 11 B, making it time-barred under the statute.

6. Referring to Supreme Court judgments, the Tribunal emphasized that authorities must adhere to statutory provisions, especially regarding time limits for refund claims, even in cases of illegal levy.

7. Considering the settled legal position from Supreme Court cases, the Tribunal found no grounds to deviate from the rejection of the refund claim, as the authorities are bound by statutory provisions in such matters.

8. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order, dismissing the appeal due to the time-barred nature of the refund claim as per the relevant Acts.

This detailed analysis highlights the key arguments, legal precedents, and the Tribunal's decision regarding the rejection of the refund claim based on the limitation period under Section 11 B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.