9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (5) TMI 1517 - AT - Service TaxRefund of service tax paid erroneously - rejection on the ground of Time Bar - Section 11B of CEA, 1944 - Held that - It is not in dispute that the said amount has been paid between 18.3.2015 and 8.3.2015 and the refund claim was filed by the appellant on 24.5.2016 ie., beyond one year from the date of payment of Service Tax - Hon ble Gujarat High Court in IOCL Case 2011 (12) TMI 540 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT has held that the period of limitation prescribed under Section 11B of CEA, 1994 is not a procedural requirement and the delay in filing the claim cannot be condoned - refund rightly rejected - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
Issues Involved:
1. Refund claim of Service Tax barred by limitation. Analysis: The appeal was filed against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax-RAJKOT, rejecting a refund claim of Service Tax amounting to ?3,61,563/- out of the total claim of ?8,70,167/-. The appellant contended that since the excess Service Tax was not payable, the period of limitation under Sec. 11B of CEA, 1944 should not apply. The appellant referred to a judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court to support their argument. The Revenue, represented by the Ld AR, supported the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and cited a judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court to argue that the period of limitation under Section 11B of CEA, 1994 is not a procedural requirement and cannot be extended even for sufficient cause. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal examined whether the refund claim of ?3,61,563/- was time-barred. The payment was made between 18.3.2015 and 8.3.2015, while the refund claim was filed on 24.5.2016, which was beyond one year from the date of payment. The Tribunal referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the IOCL case, which emphasized that the period of limitation under Section 11B is clear and cannot be extended by the competent authority for any reason. Based on this precedent, the Tribunal concluded that the refund claim was indeed barred by limitation. Consequently, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.
|
