9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (2) TMI 297 - AT - Central ExciseRefund of service tax - Time limitation - rejection of refund on the ground that the refund claim was not filed within a period of six months as provided in sub Section (3) of Section 102 of Finance Act, 1994 - HELD THAT - The issue has been settled by the decision of Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of M/S MDP INFRA (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER, CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE CGST 2019 (2) TMI 208 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT , which was approved by the Hon'ble Apex Court in MDP INFRA (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER 2021 (7) TMI 1261 - SC ORDER where it was held that Evidently, the notification No. 12/2012 25/2012 ceased to exist w.e.f. 01/04/2015. The exemption was revived by notification dated 01/03/2016. But since it was prospective in effect, the appellant was not entitled for any exemption, which the appellant was aware of and with open mind and eyes deposited the service tax due with interest. The appeal is dismissed.
Issues:
- Rejection of refund claim under Section 102 of Finance Act, 1994 - Timeliness of filing refund claim within the specified period Analysis: 1. The appeal was filed against the rejection of a refund claim under Section 102 of the Finance Act, 1994. Section 102 provides a special provision for exemption in certain cases related to the construction of Government buildings. It exempts service tax during a specific period for taxable services provided to the Government, local authority, or Governmental authority for construction, erection, commissioning, etc., of specific structures. Refund of service tax collected during this period is allowed under certain conditions. 2. The appellant did not appear during the proceedings despite multiple listings. The learned Superintendent (AR) referred to a judgment by the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of MDP Infra (India) Pvt. Limited. The High Court analyzed substantial questions of law regarding mistaken payment of service tax, delay in filing refund claim, and the legality of paying service tax mistakenly under an exempted service. The High Court dismissed the appeal against its decision, and the Hon'ble Apex Court also upheld the judgment. 3. The Hon'ble Member (Technical) considered the submissions and the precedent set by the High Court and the Apex Court in the MDP Infra (India) Pvt. Limited case. The decision of the High Court, approved by the Apex Court, clarified the issues raised in the appeal. It was concluded that the appellant was not entitled to the refund based on the settled legal interpretation. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed based on the precedent established by the higher courts. In conclusion, the judgment upheld the rejection of the refund claim under Section 102 of the Finance Act, 1994, based on the legal interpretation provided by the High Court and the Apex Court in a similar case. The timeliness of filing the refund claim within the specified period was crucial, and the appellant's failure to meet this requirement led to the dismissal of the appeal.
|
