2010 (4) TMI 394 - AT - Service Tax

Refund- Limitation- The appellant filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order rejecting the refund claim as time bar. Refund claim filed based on Tribunal decision in respect of another assessee. Held that- Supreme Court in 1997 Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, held that refund claim cannot be filed by a person based on decision of Court or Tribunal rendered in the case of another person. Thus impugned order rejecting refund upheld.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against rejection of refund claim as time-barred.
2. Applicability of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act to service tax refund claims.
3. Precedents set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding time limits for refund claims.
4. Validity of refund claim based on decisions of Court or Tribunal in another assessee's case.

Analysis:
1. The appellant appealed against the order rejecting the refund claim as time-barred. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection, citing the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, which require refund claims to be filed within one year of the payment of service tax. The Hon'ble Supreme Court's decisions in the cases of Miles India Ltd. and Collector of C.E., Chandigarh emphasized the binding nature of time limits set by statutes. The Tribunal found no fault in the impugned order due to the delay in filing the refund claim beyond the prescribed period.

2. The Revenue highlighted that filing a refund claim based on another assessee's case, as per the Tribunal's decision in J.R. Fabricators Ltd. v. CCE, is not permissible. The Tribunal concurred with the Revenue's argument, referencing the Hon'ble Supreme Court's ruling in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, which emphasized that each party must independently pursue their claims without relying on decisions made in other cases. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, stating that once an assessment becomes final, seeking a refund based on another party's case is not permissible.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the rejection of the refund claim as time-barred, citing the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act and the precedents set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Additionally, the Tribunal emphasized the principle that each party must independently pursue their claims without relying on decisions made in other cases. The appeal was dismissed, and the decision was pronounced in the open court.