2017 (6) TMI 430 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim of service tax paid on erection, commissioning and installation service - rejection on the ground of time limitation - Section 11B of the Central Excise Act - Held that - reliance placed in the case of Sarita Handa Exports (P) Ltd. vs. UOI 2010 (9) TMI 254 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT , where it was held that refund application beyond period specified under Section 11B of the Central Excise could not be entertained - the refund claim is barred by limitation - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues: Appeal against rejection of refund claim due to time limitation under Section 11B of Central Excise Act for trenching and cable laying activity.

Analysis:
1. Issue of Time Barred Refund Claim: The appellant contended that the rejection of the refund claim solely on the grounds of being time-barred was legally unsustainable. The appellant argued that the trenching and cable laying activities were not taxable under erection, commissioning, and installation service, citing Circular No.123/5/2010 issued by the Government of India. The appellant also asserted that the amount paid during the investigation was a deposit, not a duty, and thus, the limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act should not apply. The appellant relied on various legal precedents to support this argument, including the decisions in cases such as Suchitra Components Ltd. Vs. CCE, Guntur and Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Trichy.

2. Legal Position on Time Limit for Refund Claims: The respondent, on the other hand, supported the impugned order's findings, emphasizing that the refund claim falls under the purview of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. Citing the Tribunal's decision in CCE, Hyderabad-II vs. Excel Telecom Ltd. and the Supreme Court's ruling in Assistant Collector Vs. Anam Electrical Manufacturing Company, the respondent argued that statutory time limits apply even to claims for refund of illegal levies, and no authority can extend these time limits. The respondent referred to the decision in Sarita Handa Exports (P) Ltd. Vs. UOI, where the High Court held that refund applications beyond the specified period in Section 11B could not be entertained. The respondent further relied on the Division Bench's decision in the case of Prabhakar C. Survarna Vs. CCE, which upheld the applicability of the time limit prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act for refund claims.

3. Decision and Dismissal of Appeal: After considering the arguments presented by both parties and the legal precedents cited, the Judicial Member pronounced the order dismissing the appellant's appeal. The Judicial Member concurred with the respondent's position that the refund claim was indeed time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. Citing the various legal authorities and decisions provided by the respondent, the Judicial Member found no infirmity in the impugned order. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the rejection of the refund claim on the grounds of being barred by limitation.

In conclusion, the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore centered on the dispute regarding the time-barred refund claim for trenching and cable laying activities, with the appellant arguing against the application of the limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act while the respondent supported its applicability based on legal precedents. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the rejection of the refund claim due to being time-barred as per the statutory provisions.