2013 (7) TMI 630 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of Service tax bar of limitation Held that - The refund claim had been time barred - the claim had been filed beyond the statutory period of one year as stipulated u/s 11B - Court followed the judgement of collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh Vs. Doaba Co-operative Sugar Mills (1988 (8) TMI 103 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) - there was no infirmity in the Order of Commissioner (Appeal) appeal decided against assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Time limitation for filing refund claims under the Central Excise Act.
2. Applicability of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act in service tax matters.
3. Claiming refund under mistake of law.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed three refund claims for different periods, but the original authority rejected the claim for one period amounting to Rs. 2,06,091/- due to being filed beyond the statutory one-year period as per Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Commissioner (Appeal) also rejected the appeal. The appellant argued that the tax was paid under a mistake of law and requested the refund. However, the Tribunal upheld the rejection stating that claims filed beyond the one-year limitation are time-barred under the Central Excise Act.

2. The Revenue argued that the refund of service tax is governed by Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, which is made applicable in service tax matters under Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1984. They referred to a Supreme Court decision emphasizing that authorities are bound by the provisions of the Acts they function under. The Tribunal concurred that the limitations provided under the Central Excise Act apply to claims submitted before the original authority, supporting the rejection of the appeal based on the statutory time limitation.

3. The Tribunal noted that the refund claims were filed beyond the one-year period stipulated by the Central Excise Act. Citing a Supreme Court case, the Tribunal emphasized that refund claims submitted before the Department are governed by the Act's provisions. Consequently, the Tribunal found no fault in the Commissioner (Appeal)'s decision and upheld the rejection of the appeal, ultimately dismissing the appeal.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues involved, the arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's reasoning leading to the final decision to reject the appeal based on the statutory time limitation for filing refund claims under the Central Excise Act.