2018 (5) TMI 890 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - Section 102 of the Finance Act, 2016 - exemption was restored by incorporation of Section 102 under the Finance Act, for which the appellant filed refund claim - Time limitation - applicability of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Works Contract Service - benefit of N/N. 25/2012-ST dated 20/06/2012. Held that - The retrospective exemption having been granted by the legislative, there was a clause for refund of the tax paid during the intervening period subject to the condition that such refund claim are filed within the period of six months. Admittedly, the refund stands filed beyond the said period, thus, contravening the condition - There is no power with the Central Excise Authorities to legislate or to travel beyond the statutory limitations provided by the legislature. Similarly, neither the Tribunal has such powers to go beyond the provisions of the Act. Reference can be made to Hon ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Porcelain Electrical Mfg. Co. vs. CCE, New Delhi 1994 (11) TMI 145 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA , wherein it was observed that the refund claim filed before departmental authorities are to be governed by the time limit provided under the statute and the general law of limitation invoked by various High Courts under their extra-ordinary jurisdiction is inapplicable to the cases where the refund obligations has been moved before the Revenue authorities. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Withdrawal of exemption under Notification No. 6/2015-ST dated 01/03/2015.
2. Restoration of exemption under Finance Bill, 2016.
3. Time limit for filing refund claim under Section 102 of the Finance Act, 2016.
4. Rejection of refund claim as barred by limitation.
5. Interpretation of procedural aspects and retrospective exemption by the legislative.

Analysis:

1. The appellant was registered under Works Contract Service and availed exemption under Notification 25/2012-ST. The exemption was withdrawn by Notification No. 6/2015-ST, leading to a deposit of &8377; 25,49,317/- for a specific period.

2. The Finance Bill, 2016 reinstated the exemption for services provided to Government authorities under certain conditions. Section 102 of the Finance Act, 2016 allowed for a refund of service tax collected during the specified period, subject to timely filing of refund claims.

3. The appellant filed a refund claim on 24/03/2017, beyond the stipulated 60-day period and with a delay of 131 days. The claim was met with a show cause notice proposing rejection on the grounds of time bar, as per Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and Section 102 of the Finance Act, 2016.

4. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the refund claim as time-barred, a decision upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner noted that Section 102 provided a six-month time limit for filing refund claims from the enactment of the Finance Act, 2016, which the appellant had exceeded.

5. The appellant argued that the time limit was procedural and, given the retrospective exemption granted by the legislature, the Revenue should not withhold the amount. They contended that the refund claim should be allowed as a substantial right, unaffected by procedural grounds.

6. The Tribunal, after considering both sides' arguments, emphasized that the legislative provision for refund within a specified period must be adhered to. Citing a Supreme Court decision, the Tribunal clarified that refund claims are governed by statutory time limits, and neither the Central Excise Authorities nor the Tribunal can override these limitations.

7. Ultimately, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the lower authorities' decisions, as the issue was settled law. The appeal was rejected, affirming the rejection of the refund claim as time-barred.

This detailed analysis highlights the withdrawal and restoration of exemptions, the statutory time limits for refund claims, and the significance of procedural compliance in claiming refunds under legislative provisions.