9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (6) TMI 668 - AT - Service TaxRefund of Service Tax paid erroneously for GTA under Reverse Charge Mechanism - rejection on the ground of time limitation - HELD THAT - Appellant is not entitled to get the refund as claimed by it for the reason that such claim was made after the period of limitation was over and the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CCE Nagpur Vs. SGR Infratech Ltd. in which Mafatlal Industries Ltd. 1996 (12) TMI 50 - SUPREME COURT judgment dealing with correctness of proposition of Kanhaiyalal 1958 (9) TMI 57 - SUPREME COURT decision was dealt with, would have no bearing on the findings of Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment is followed with consistent decisions in such a scenario, including the one cited by learned AR in the case of Sarita Handa Exports (P) Ltd. 2010 (9) TMI 254 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT of the Hon'ble Punjab Haryana High Court following Mafatlal Industries Ltd. is available to the effect that refund application beyond the period specified under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could not be entertained unless refund arose in consequence of a declaration of a provision/statute as unconstitutional, which is admittedly not the fact in the present case. The order passed by the Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals-I), Pune is hereby confirmed - Appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Denial of refund of Service Tax on the ground of limitation. 2. Maintainability of refund claim without reassessment. 3. Application of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 4. Interpretation of judicial precedents regarding refund claims. Detailed Analysis: 1. Denial of Refund of Service Tax on the Ground of Limitation: The primary issue in this case was the denial of a refund of Rs. 85,83,430.15 of Service Tax paid erroneously for Goods Transport Agency (GTA) services under the Reverse Charge Mechanism for the period between December 2013 and June 2017. The refund application was filed on 07.09.2018, which was beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 11B(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Refund Sanctioning Authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) both denied the refund on the ground of limitation. The Tribunal upheld this decision, stating that the limitation period for filing a refund claim is one year from the relevant date, which in this case is the date of payment. The Tribunal emphasized that the payment was made after ascertaining the Service Tax to be payable and later discovered to be erroneous, which does not exempt the appellant from the limitation period. 2. Maintainability of Refund Claim Without Reassessment: The appellant argued that the refund should be allowed based on the Tribunal's decision in a similar case (Oil And Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Tiruchirapalli) and other judicial precedents. However, the Tribunal referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India, which states that a refund cannot be claimed based on a decision in another person's case without reopening the assessment. The Tribunal reiterated that reopening of assessment is impermissible in law, and without reassessment, the refund cannot be granted. 3. Application of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944: Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, mandates that a refund claim must be filed before the expiry of one year from the relevant date. The Tribunal noted that the appellant's claim was filed beyond this period. The Tribunal also discussed the legislative intent behind the limitation period, emphasizing that the law assists those who are vigilant with their rights and not those who sleep upon them. The Tribunal concluded that the period of limitation prescribed under Section 11B is applicable to all refund claims, including those made under a mistake of law. 4. Interpretation of Judicial Precedents Regarding Refund Claims: The appellant relied on various judicial decisions to support their claim for a refund, arguing that payments made under a mistake of law should be refunded. However, the Tribunal distinguished these cases, noting that they involved different circumstances, such as exemptions extended through CBEC Circulars. The Tribunal emphasized that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. is binding and applicable to the present case. The Tribunal also referred to other judicial decisions, including those of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court and the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, which support the principle that refund claims must adhere to the limitation period specified under Section 11B. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, confirming the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals-I), Pune, which denied the refund claim on the grounds of limitation and merit. The Tribunal reiterated that the appellant's claim was filed beyond the permissible period and that the decision in another person's case cannot be used to reopen an assessment or claim a refund without reassessment.
|
