2015 (6) TMI 1280 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of service tax paid - rejection on the ground that same is hit by limitation as per Section 11B read with explanation B(ec) of Central Excise Act 1944 - appellant got a favourable order from ld. Commissioner (A) on 22-6-2007 and filed the refund claim on 23-5-2011 - HELD THAT - On 11-5-2007 explanation of B(ec) was inserted to Section 11B of Central Excise Act 1944 which explains that relevant date is a date on which assessee got the favourable order from the higher authorities. In that case from the date of the said order the assessee is required to file refund claim within 1 year. In this case admittedly favourable order was passed by ld. Commissioner (A) in favour of the appellant on 22-6-2007 after the insertion of explanation on 11-5-2007. Therefore appellant is required to file refund claim within 1 year from the said date which appellant has failed to do so. Therefore the refund claim filed by the appellant is hit by limitation. The relevance made by the ld. Counsel for the appellant in the case of Crompton Greaves Ltd. 2009 (4) TMI 490 - CESTAT MUMBAI is of no help. In fact in this case refund claim was filed on 1-11-1998 whereas the explanation was inserted to section 11B of the Act on 11-5-2007. Therefore the refund claim is hit by limitation. Conclusion - The appellant is required to file refund claim within 1 year from the said date which appellant has failed to do so. Therefore the refund claim filed by the appellant is hit by limitation. There are no infirmity with the impugned order. Same is upheld. Appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed.

Summary

The appellant appealed against the dismissal of their refund claim as time-barred. The appellant received a favorable order from the Commissioner (A) on 22-6-2007 and filed the refund claim on 23-5-2011. The issue was whether the refund claim was within the time limit as per Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal held that the claim was filed beyond the one-year limit from the date of the favorable order, making it time-barred. The Tribunal also noted that the appellant's reliance on a previous case was not applicable due to the different timelines involved. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the impugned order.