2025 (1) TMI 431 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - rejection of refund on the ground of time-bar holding that the payment of Service Tax was made on 03.06.2014 and the refund claim was filed by the claimant on 21.03.2016, which is beyond the period of one year fixed for filing of a refund application in terms of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as made applicable to Service Tax by virtue of Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. HELD THAT - The Appellant have not submitted any evidence before the original authority or the appellate authority to substantiate their claim that they had undertaken construction of road work. Thus, the claim of the Appellant that they are not liable to pay Service Tax in terms of Notification No. 25/2012-S.T. dated 20.06.2012 Entry No.13(a) has not been established or affirmed by any order. The Appellant cannot merely claim that they have rendered construction of roads and bridges and thus eligible for exemption under Notification No. 25/2012-S.T. dated 20.06.2012. In the absence of any order allowing the benefit of Notification No. 25/2012-S.T. dated 20.06.2012 to the Appellant, it is found that the Appellant cannot claim the refund suo moto without producing any corroborative evidence. Conclusion - The refund claim was filed by the Appellant on 21.03.2016, which is beyond the period of one year prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as made applicable to Service Tax by virtue of Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. Since the Appellant has paid the amount as Service Tax, the refund claim, if any, has to be filed as per the time-limit provided under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act,1944. As the Appellant has not filed the refund claim within the period of one year as prescribed under Section 11B of the Act, the lower authorities have rightly rejected the refund claim on the ground of limitation. There are no infirmity in the impugned order upholding the rejection of the refund claim filed by the Appellant and accordingly, the appeal filed by the Appellant is liable to be rejected - the appeal filed by the Appellant stands rejected.

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered in this judgment are:

Whether the refund claim filed by the Appellant is time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as applicable to Service Tax by Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994.
Whether the amount paid by the Appellant as Service Tax should be treated as a deposit, thereby exempting it from the time limitation prescribed under Section 11B.
Whether the Appellant is eligible for the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 25/2012-S.T. dated 20.06.2012 [Entry No.13(a)] for construction of road work, which is exempt from Service Tax.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Time-barred Refund Claim

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The refund claim is governed by Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which prescribes a one-year limitation period for filing refund claims. This provision is applicable to Service Tax by virtue of Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court emphasized that the refund claim must adhere to the statutory timeline. The Appellant's payment of Service Tax on 03.06.2014 and their subsequent refund claim filed on 21.03.2016 exceeded the one-year limitation period.
Key Evidence and Findings: The Appellant's payment details and the timeline of their refund application were critical. The court found no evidence to support any exception to the statutory limitation.
Application of Law to Facts: The court applied the limitation provision strictly, finding that the Appellant's claim was indeed time-barred.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Appellant argued that the payment was made erroneously and should be treated as a deposit, thus not subject to the limitation period. However, the court found no legal basis or evidence to support this contention.
Conclusions: The court concluded that the refund claim was rightly rejected on the ground of being time-barred.

Issue 2: Classification of Payment as Deposit

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Appellant relied on precedents suggesting that erroneous payments should be treated as deposits, not subject to refund claim limitations.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court found that the Appellant voluntarily paid the Service Tax and did not provide sufficient evidence to classify the payment as a deposit.
Key Evidence and Findings: The absence of evidence supporting the claim that the payment was erroneous or should be treated differently from a typical tax payment was pivotal.
Application of Law to Facts: The court maintained that without corroborative evidence, the payment could not be reclassified as a deposit.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Appellant's reliance on previous decisions was deemed insufficient without concrete evidence of error.
Conclusions: The court upheld the classification of the payment as Service Tax, subject to the statutory refund claim limitations.

Issue 3: Eligibility for Exemption under Notification No. 25/2012-S.T.

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Appellant claimed exemption under Notification No. 25/2012-S.T. for construction of road work, which is exempt from Service Tax.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court noted that the Appellant failed to provide evidence of undertaking construction work eligible for exemption.
Key Evidence and Findings: The lack of documentary evidence or authoritative orders confirming the Appellant's eligibility for exemption was crucial.
Application of Law to Facts: The court found that mere assertions without evidence do not suffice to claim exemption.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Appellant's argument for exemption was not supported by any factual or legal evidence, leading to its dismissal.
Conclusions: The court concluded that the Appellant was not eligible for the claimed exemption without appropriate evidence.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: "The refund claim, if any, has to be filed as per the time-limit provided under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944."
Core Principles Established: The judgment reaffirms the strict adherence to statutory timelines for refund claims and the necessity of evidence to support claims of exemption or erroneous payment.
Final Determinations on Each Issue: The court upheld the rejection of the refund claim as time-barred, confirmed the payment as Service Tax not a deposit, and denied the exemption claim due to lack of evidence.

← Previous Next →