2018 (6) TMI 1487 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of service tax paid which is otherwise exempted - Rejection on the ground that the same is filed beyond the period of limitation u/s 11B of CEA - Held that - Identical/similar facts arose in the case of Parijat Construction before the Hon ble High Court of Bombay, 2017 (10) TMI 659 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT , where the petitioner-appellant therein had filed refund claim beyond the period of one year on noticing that they are not supposed to pay service tax liability, the view of the Tribunal that provision of Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 would be attracted was set aside by Lordships - following the same, the refund allowed in present case also - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim for service tax paid beyond the period of limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
The appeal was against Order-in-Appeal No. MUMSVTAX-002-APP-531-16-17 dated 31.10.2016. Despite the absence of the appellant, the issue was considered for disposal. The appellant had filed a refund claim for service tax paid during April 2014 to December 2014, seeking exemption under specific clauses. The claim was rejected solely based on being filed beyond the limitation period under Section 11B. The Tribunal referred to a similar case, Parijat Construction, where the High Court held that the limitation under Section 11B does not apply to refund claims for service tax paid under a mistake of law. The Tribunal followed this precedent and set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal and directing the respondent to refund the amount within three months.

The Tribunal found that the issue was no longer res integra based on the Parijat Construction case. The High Court had ruled that the limitation under Section 11B does not apply to refund claims for service tax paid under a mistake of law. The Tribunal held that the impugned order was unsustainable and followed the High Court's decision to set it aside, allowing the appeal and granting the refund. The Tribunal emphasized that the decisions relied upon by the Appellate Tribunal did not support rejecting the refund claim on the grounds of limitation under Section 11B.

In light of the judgment in the Parijat Construction case, the Tribunal held that the impugned order was not sustainable and set it aside. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief, directing the respondent to refund the specified amount within three months. The Tribunal concluded that the impugned order was set aside, following the precedent set by the High Court in the Parijat Construction case, and granting the appellant's refund claim.