2018 (8) TMI 29 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of service tax paid by mistake - rejection on the ground of time limitation - applicability of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that - It is evidenced from the refund applications that the same were filed under the statutory provisions and were also entertained by the authorities under the provisions of the statute - Since, Section 11B of the Act clearly mandates that the refund applications have to be filed within one year from the relevant date, which have admittedly not been filed by the appellant within such prescribed period, the refund sanctioning authority, being a creature under the statute, has rightly rejected the refund applications as per the statutory provisions. In terms of well laid principles of law that the time limit should be strictly adhered to for consideration of the refund application and that the same has not been complied with by the applicant, rejection of the refund applications by the authority below cannot be interfered with by the Tribunal. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund application rejection on the ground of limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
The appeals challenged the rejection of refund applications due to filing beyond the time limit prescribed by Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant, a manufacturer of chemical fertilizers, mistakenly paid Service Tax on GTA services for transportation of goods during a specific period. The appellant sought refunds based on notifications exempting them from such taxes. However, the refund applications were rejected as they were filed after the one-year limitation period. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection citing Supreme Court judgments. The appellant argued that the Limitation Act, 1963 should apply, allowing a three-year period for refunds. The appellant cited relevant case laws to support their claim. The Revenue contended that statutory time limits must be strictly followed. The Tribunal examined the case records and noted the applications were filed under Section 11B, which mandates a one-year limit. The Tribunal referenced Supreme Court and Tribunal decisions emphasizing strict adherence to time limits for refund applications. It differentiated the case laws cited by the appellant, noting they were not directly applicable. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the rejection of the refund applications, stating that the statutory time limit must be adhered to, and the authority acted correctly in rejecting the applications. The appeals were dismissed based on the established legal principles regarding time limits for refund applications.