9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (9) TMI 8 - AT - Service TaxRefund of service tax - Club Association Service - Mandap Keeper Service - Renting of Immovable Property Service - Legal Consulting Service - Technical Inspection and Certification Agency Service - Sponsorship Service - Selling of Space or Time Slots for advertisement - Section 11B of the Central Excise Rule, 1944 - HELD THAT - In the present case the fact is not under dispute that the appellant have admittedly paid the service tax on the service of Club or Association and same was not challenged by them at any point of time. They filed refund claims on 27.01.2020 for the period from 2010-2011 to 2017- 2018 (April to June-2017), therefore, the claim of the appellant was filed after one year limit which is prescribed under Section 11B. As regard, the submission of the appellant that they being a member of Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry ( FICCI) and Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry ( FICCI) was one of the party in the Calcutta Club Limited 2019 (10) TMI 160 - SUPREME COURT , the period of limitation should start from the date of the judgment of the Supreme Court. Since filed the refund claim after one year from the date of payment of service tax, the same is hit by limitation. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) also considered in detail, the submission of the appellant in as much as they claimed that they being a member of Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry ( FICCI) should get the benefit of the Calcutta Club Limited case as the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry ( FICCI) was one of the party in that case. On going through the finding of the impugned order carefully, there are no infirmity in the impugned order. The refund of the appellant is clearly hit by limitation in terms of the Section 11B of the Central Excise Rule, 1994. Appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of refund claims by the adjudicating authority. 2. Applicability of the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Calcutta Club Limited. 3. Limitation period for filing refund claims under Section 11B of the Central Excise Rule, 1944. 4. Applicability of judgments related to Club and Association Service to the appellant. 5. Eligibility of the appellant for refund claims based on their membership in Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI). Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Rejection of Refund Claims by the Adjudicating Authority: The appellant, M/s. Gujarat Chamber of Commerce and Industry, filed appeals against the rejection of their refund claims by the adjudicating authority, which were upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant contended that they were not liable to pay service tax as an incorporated members organization. The adjudicating authority rejected the claims based on several grounds, including the appellant's registration status and the time limit prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. Applicability of the Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment in the Case of Calcutta Club Limited: The appellant argued that their refund claims were valid based on the Supreme Court's judgment in the Calcutta Club Limited case, which held that service tax was not applicable to services provided by a club to its members. The appellant claimed that as a member of FICCI, they should benefit from this judgment. However, the tribunal found that the appellant was not a party to the Calcutta Club Limited case, and thus, the benefit of the judgment could not be extended to them. 3. Limitation Period for Filing Refund Claims under Section 11B of the Central Excise Rule, 1944: The tribunal noted that the appellant filed the refund claims on 27.01.2020 for the period from 2010-2011 to 2017-2018, which was beyond the one-year limit prescribed under Section 11B. The appellant argued that the limitation period should start from the date of the Supreme Court judgment in the Calcutta Club Limited case. However, the tribunal held that the refund claims were time-barred as the appellant did not challenge the levy of service tax at any point and filed the claims after the prescribed period. 4. Applicability of Judgments Related to Club and Association Service to the Appellant: The tribunal found that the refund claims included amounts related to services other than Club and Association Service, such as Mandap Keeper Service and Technical & Inspection and Certification Agency Service. The judgments cited by the appellant, including those from the Gujarat High Court and the Supreme Court, specifically addressed Club and Association Service and could not be applied to other services. 5. Eligibility of the Appellant for Refund Claims Based on Their Membership in FICCI: The appellant contended that as a member of FICCI, which was a party in the Calcutta Club Limited case, they should benefit from the Supreme Court judgment. The tribunal rejected this argument, stating that the parties in the Calcutta Club Limited case were litigating their own cases and not on behalf of their members. Therefore, the appellant could not claim the benefit of the judgment based on their FICCI membership. Conclusion: The tribunal upheld the impugned order, affirming that the refund claims were time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Rule, 1944. The appellant's arguments regarding the applicability of the Calcutta Club Limited judgment and their FICCI membership were rejected. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.
|
