2019 (1) TMI 719 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - excess service tax paid which was not payable as per the statutory provisions - time limitation - Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that - Section 11B ibid deals with the situation of claim of refund of duty (service tax). Clause (f) in explanation (B), appended to Section 11B ibid provides the relevant date for the purpose of computation of the limitation period for filing of the refund application. In the case of the present appellant, the relevant date should be considered as the date of payment of service tax. Section 11B ibid mandates that the refund application has to be filed before expiry of one year from the relevant date. In this case, it is an admitted fact on record that the refund application was filed by the appellant beyond the statutory time limitation prescribed under the statute. Therefore, the refund sanctioning authority adjudicating the refund issue under the statute has no option or scope to take a contrary view, than the limitation period prescribed in the statute, to decide the issue differently. In other words, when the wordings of Section 11B are clear and unambiguous, different interpretations cannot be placed by the authorities functioning under the statute and they are bound to obey the dictates/provisions contained therein. The refund application was filed and decided under Section 11B ibid, the time limit prescribed there-under was strictly applicable for deciding such issue - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection based on limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for service tax paid under mistaken belief.

Analysis:
The appellant, engaged in providing taxable services, filed a refund application for excess service tax paid during 2007-08 to 2008-09. The application was rejected by the adjudicating authority and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) due to being filed beyond the one-year limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant argued that the limitation period should not apply as the tax was paid under a mistaken belief, citing the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in a similar case.

The Revenue contended that the refund application was filed under statutory provisions and should adhere to the prescribed time limit under Section 11B. They supported their stance with judgments from the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Tribunal heard both sides and examined the case records.

The Tribunal noted that the appellant's refund application was filed beyond the statutory time limit prescribed under Section 11B. Referring to the relevant date for computation of the limitation period and the clear language of Section 11B, the Tribunal emphasized that different interpretations cannot be applied, and authorities must adhere to the statutory provisions. Citing judgments from the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Tribunal highlighted that limitations under the Central Excise Act prevail in refund matters. The Tribunal concluded that the authorities rightly rejected the refund application based on limitation as mandated by the statute and upheld the impugned order.

In light of settled legal principles and the strict applicability of the time limit under Section 11B for refund applications, the Tribunal found no fault in the Commissioner's order. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appellant's appeal.

The judgment was pronounced on 11.01.2019 by Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) at the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI.