9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (8) TMI 169 - AT - Service TaxStay application Waiver of pre-deposit - Unjust-enrichment under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - The appellant undertook activities of Galvanising work on job work basis for which they were paying service tax under Business Support Services during the period 2009-10 and 2010-11. Appellant was regularly filing ST-3 returns and also paid the service tax of Rs. 7,02,131/- during the above period. During the course of EA-2000 audit of the appellant s unit, the officer pointed out that the activity of galvanising carried out by the appellant amounts to manufacture and they were required to pay Central Excise duty. Accordingly, the appellant paid Central Excise duty of Rs. 9,25,975/- and filed refund claim of service tax paid earlier Held that - Relying upon the Mafatlal Industries Limited vs. UOI case 2004 (6) TMI 139 - CESTAT, MUMBAI , appellant would not be entitled to refund in terms of law settled by this case - Not only the doctrine of unjust enrichment is required to satisfy as per Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 but the time-bar aspect specified in the Section is also reqruied to be fulfilled - Prima-facie, the limitation and unjust-enrichment grounds will be applicable in the present case - Appellant has, therefore, not made out a prima facie case for the complete waiver of Rs. 7,01,680/- - Appellant directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) within eight weeks.
Issues:
1. Applicability of unjust enrichment and time-bar to a refund claim. 2. Interpretation of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 3. Requirement of deposit for stay from recovery. Analysis: Issue 1: Applicability of unjust enrichment and time-bar to a refund claim: The case involved a stay application by the appellant related to a refund claim of service tax paid earlier. The appellant had paid Central Excise duty after an audit pointed out that their galvanising activity amounted to manufacture. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the refund claim, citing unjust enrichment under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and time-bar. The appellant argued against unjust enrichment, stating they had paid both service tax and Central Excise duty totaling Rs. 16,28,106. The appellant cited relevant case laws to support their argument. However, the Tribunal noted the distinction in the facts of the present case compared to the case law cited by the appellant. The Tribunal found prima facie applicability of unjust enrichment in the case, as the service tax had been paid only once and recovered from customers. Issue 2: Interpretation of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944: The Tribunal considered the applicability of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which deals with unjust enrichment and time-bar for refund claims. Referring to relevant judgments, including the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in SRF Limited vs. Assistant Collector Central Excise, Trichy, the Tribunal emphasized that even in cases of unconstitutional levy, the burden of duty not being passed on to others is a crucial requirement for refund claims. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of satisfying both the doctrine of unjust enrichment and the time-bar aspect specified in Section 11B for refund eligibility. Issue 3: Requirement of deposit for stay from recovery: In the final decision, the Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit Rs. 1,00,000 within eight weeks and report compliance before the Deputy Registrar. The Tribunal specified that subject to this payment, there would be a stay from the recovery of the balance amounts. This condition was imposed as the appellant failed to establish a prima facie case for the complete waiver of the refund amount, considering the applicability of unjust enrichment and time-bar under Section 11B. In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment emphasized the importance of complying with the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, regarding unjust enrichment and time-bar for refund claims. The decision highlighted the need to establish that the burden of duty had not been passed on to others, even in cases of potential unconstitutional levies. The Tribunal's directive for a deposit reflected the requirement to fulfill certain conditions before obtaining a stay from recovery, considering the legal principles governing refund claims in the present case. This detailed analysis provides a comprehensive overview of the legal judgment, focusing on the issues raised, the arguments presented by the parties, and the Tribunal's decision based on the interpretation of relevant legal provisions and case laws.
|
