9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (5) TMI 998 - AT - Service TaxPeriod of limitation - Refund claim - filed after one year from the relevant date - Service tax paid on the output service - Business Auxiliary Services (Visa Services) - Held that - in view of the Hon ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Assistant Collector of Customs Vs. Anam Electrical Manufacturing Co. 1997 (1) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA and jurisdictional Bombay High Court judgment in the case of Andrew Telecom (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise Goa 2014 (4) TMI 507 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT, refund claim is covered by Explanation (B) (f) of Section 11B (1) of Central Excise Act 1944, as applicable to service tax vide Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994, refund claim is not sustainable as it was filed beyond 1 year from the date of payment of service tax. Since refund of any amount is covered by Section 11B and there no other provision, this Tribunal being a creature under the Central Excise/Customs Act cannot go beyond the statute and therefore cannot relax the time limitation provided under the statute. As per my above discussion and settled legal position, I am of the considered view that the refund claim being filed after one year is hit by limitation and therefore correctly rejected by the lower authority. - Decided against the appellant
Issues:
- Refund claim of service tax paid on Business Auxiliary Services. - Applicability of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on refund claims. - Time limitation for filing refund claims under Section 11B. - Interpretation of legal provisions and precedents regarding refund of service tax. Analysis: 1. Refund Claim of Service Tax: The appellant filed a refund claim for service tax paid on Business Auxiliary Services, contending that the service was not within the scope of service tax applicability. The claim was rejected by the adjudicating authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the decision, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal. 2. Applicability of Section 11B: The appellant argued that since the service was not taxable, the payment was made without authority of law, and thus, Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 should not apply to the refund claim. However, the Revenue contended that Section 11B is the only provision governing refund of service tax amounts, emphasizing the mandatory nature of the time limit prescribed under this section. 3. Time Limitation under Section 11B: The Tribunal analyzed the legal framework and held that Section 11B is the sole provision for refund of service tax amounts, including the requirement of adhering to the time limitation specified therein. The Tribunal reasoned that every refundable amount, if found to be non-payable, is treated as paid without authority of law, making Section 11B applicable for all refund claims. 4. Interpretation of Precedents: The Tribunal reviewed various judgments cited by both parties, including those from the Hon'ble Supreme Court, to establish the settled legal position regarding refund claims under Section 11B. The Tribunal emphasized that statutory time limits must be strictly followed for refund claims, as authorities are bound by the provisions of the Act, as highlighted in previous decisions such as Doaba Co-operative Sugar Mills and Miles India Ltd. 5. Conclusion: Based on the legal analysis and precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the refund claim filed after one year was time-barred under Section 11B, and thus, correctly rejected by the lower authority. The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant and emphasizing the importance of adhering to statutory provisions for refund claims. This comprehensive analysis highlights the key legal arguments, interpretations of relevant provisions, and the application of precedents in the judgment delivered by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI.
|
