2019 (3) TMI 306 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of service tax paid - time limitation - Revenue entertained a view that the said refund claim stands filed by them after the prescribed period of one year, was hit by limitation and as such was not to be sanctioned - Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1994 - Held that - The Commissioner (Appeals) has referred to various decisions of the Hon ble Supreme Court laying down that the Authorities working under the Act are bound by the provisions of the Act and cannot go beyond the same. The law on the issue is well settled. Each and every refund claim of tax/duty, whether paid erroneously or not, is required to be governed by the provisions of the Act. In fact, every refund claim arises on account of the fact that the same was not required to be paid. As such, if the refunds are to be allowed on the ground that they were not required to be paid, without adhering to the limitation provisions, then each and every refund claim would become payable and the limitation provisions, as enacted in terms of the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 would become redundant and infructuous. Admittedly, in the present case the refund claims stands filed after a period of one year from the relevant date, in which case the same has been rightly rejected by the Lower Authorities as barred by limitation - Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Request for adjournment
- Refund claim of Service Tax
- Application of limitation period
- Interpretation of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1994

Request for Adjournment:
The Appellate Tribunal, after rejecting the request for adjournment, proceeded to decide the appeal due to the narrow compass of the disputed issue. The Tribunal heard the learned A.R. for the Revenue and reviewed the impugned orders.

Refund Claim of Service Tax:
The appellant filed a refund claim of &8377; 23,36,577/- for Service Tax paid during the period 05/06/2013 and 06/07/2013. The claim was based on the exemption under Notification No. 25/2012-ST for a project with Haryana Development Authority. The Revenue contended that the claim was filed after the prescribed one-year period and issued a Show Cause Notice proposing rejection.

Application of Limitation Period:
The key issue was whether the limitation of one year, as per Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1994, applied to the refund claim. The Commissioner (Appeals) cited various judicial decisions emphasizing that authorities are bound by statutory provisions and cannot exceed the limitations prescribed by law. The Tribunal noted that adherence to limitation provisions is crucial, as allowing refunds without limitations would render the statutory provisions redundant.

Interpretation of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1994:
The Tribunal referred to legal precedents, including a Supreme Court judgment, to emphasize that authorities must strictly follow the limitation periods prescribed by law. The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, stating that the refund claim filed after the one-year period was rightly rejected as barred by limitation. The decision highlighted that the Tribunal, as a creature of the Act, cannot exceed the statutory provisions in granting refunds beyond the limitation period.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the rejection of the appeal, emphasizing the importance of adhering to statutory provisions, specifically the limitation period under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1994, in refund claims related to tax/duty payments.