2014 (10) TMI 642 - AT - Service Tax

Denial of refund claim - Bar of limitation - Held that - It is admitted fact that the appellant was not required to pay any service tax for acquisition of residential unit as held by the Hon ble High Court in K.V.R. Constructions (2009 (8) TMI 150 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT). As it is not an amount of service tax, therefore, provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act are not applicable to the facts of this case. Therefore, the time limit prescribed under 11B is not applicable. Hence impugned order deserves no merit and same is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against refund order set aside by Commissioner (Appeals), applicability of Section 11B of Central Excise Act on refund claim, time limitation on refund claim.

Analysis:
The appellant appealed against the impugned order where the refund of &8377; 45,000/- sanctioned by the Adjudicating Authority was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant, owner of a residential unit, filed a refund claim as the builder had collected service tax during acquisition, which was later found to be not leviable on residential units as per a High Court ruling. The Adjudicating Authority granted the refund, stating the appellant was entitled to it. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) held the refund claim was time-barred. The appellant, though not present, submitted written arguments. The Member found the appeal could be disposed of without a pre-deposit and proceeded to consider it. It was established that no service tax was due for the acquisition of the residential unit based on the High Court ruling. Consequently, Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, dealing with time limits for refunds, was deemed inapplicable. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief. The stay petition was also disposed of accordingly.