2017 (11) TMI 1482 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of service tax paid - appellant was of the view that it is not providing the management consultancy service and accordingly, is not liable to pay Service Tax under that category of such taxable service - denial of claim on the ground of time limitation - Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that - It is an admitted fact on record that the appellant got itself registered with the Service Tax Department and deposited the Service Tax for providing the management consultancy service. Since the refund application was filed by the appellant and entertained by the Department under the provisions of Section 11B ibid, the time limit provided there-under are strictly applicable for consideration of such application. In this case, the refund application was filed on 18.05.2009, claiming refund of Service Tax paid during the period July 2008 to December, 2008 - Section 11B in unambiguous terms provides that refund claim has to be filed within one year from the date of payment of duty (Service Tax). The refund application was filed and decided under Section 11B ibid, the time limit prescribed therein should be strictly followed in entertaining the refund application. Since the adjudicating /appellate authorities are created under the statute, are duty bound to obey the provisions contained therein - rejection of refund application by the authorities below is in conformity with the statutory provisions. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund of service tax claimed by appellant based on nature of services provided, denial of refund on grounds of unjust enrichment and limitation period, applicability of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for claiming refund, conflicting arguments on time limit for refund application.

Analysis:
The appellant, registered for providing management consultancy services, filed a refund application claiming service tax refund of ?53,73,802, contending it is substantially aided by the Ministry of Finance and conducts fiscal studies, not management studies. The adjudicating authority rejected a portion of the refund on unjust enrichment grounds and denied a part based on limitation. The appellant challenged the denial of refund based on limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant argued that the time limit under Section 11B should not apply as the amount deposited was not actual service tax. The appellant relied on various judgments supporting their stance.

The Revenue contended that since the refund application was filed under Section 11B claiming service tax refund, the prescribed time limit is strictly applicable, citing judgments like Miles India Ltd. and others. The authorities rejected the refund claim of ?11,49,099 as time-barred, filed beyond the one-year period from the relevant date. The Tribunal noted that the time limit provision under Section 11B mandates filing refund claims within one year from the date of payment of service tax.

Considering the settled legal position, the Tribunal upheld the rejection of the refund claim based on limitation. Referring to Supreme Court judgments, it emphasized that the authorities must adhere to the statutory provisions, and the time limit under Section 11B must be strictly followed for refund applications. The Tribunal found no merit in the appellant's arguments against the limitation period, as the refund application was decided under Section 11B. It concluded that the rejection of the refund claim by the authorities was in line with statutory provisions.

In the absence of contrary judgments on the issue, the Tribunal followed the Supreme Court rulings cited by the Revenue's counsel, emphasizing the strict applicability of the time limit prescribed in Section 11B for refund applications. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, aligning with the settled legal position and the decisions of the higher courts on the matter.

In summary, the Tribunal upheld the rejection of the refund claim based on limitation, emphasizing the strict adherence to the time limit prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for entertaining refund applications, even in cases of erroneous service tax payments.