9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (12) TMI 1031 - AT - Service TaxRefund claim - service tax paid on the commission, now the bank guarantee is surrendered by M/s. HAL ahead of expiry period of 31 months - refund denied on the ground of time limitation - Held that - refund has to be filed within one year from the date of payment and the date of payment in the present case was 05.08.2009 and the refund was preferred on 04.11.2009 which is beyond the period of one year - reliance placed in the case of Assistant Collector of Customs Vs. Anam Electrical Manufacturing Co. 1997 (1) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA wherein the Supreme Court has categorically held that the relevant date for the purpose of refund u/s 11B read with Section 83 of the FA is from the date of payment - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
Issues: Refund claim filed beyond one year from the date of payment of service tax - Interpretation of "relevant date" for refund under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944.
Analysis: 1. The appeal was against the order upholding the rejection of a refund claim by the Commissioner (Appeals) due to being time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellants sought a refund of service tax paid on commission refunded to their client. The refund claim was filed beyond one year from the date of payment of service tax, leading to the rejection of the claim. 2. The appellant argued that the "relevant date" for refund under Section 11B should be the date on which the commission was repaid to the client, not the initial date of deposit. They contended that the refund arose from surrendering a bank guarantee, resulting in the repayment of a proportionate amount of commission to the client. Therefore, the one-year period for filing the refund claim should commence from the date of repayment to the client, not the initial payment date. 3. On the contrary, the respondent defended the order, stating that Section 11B mandates filing a refund claim within one year from the date of payment. Citing judicial precedents, the respondent argued that the "relevant date" for refund is the date of payment, as established by the Supreme Court in previous cases. Referring to the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the respondent asserted that the impugned order correctly upheld the rejection of the refund claim due to being filed beyond the stipulated one-year period from the date of payment. 4. After hearing both parties and examining the arguments, the Tribunal upheld the rejection of the refund claim, emphasizing that the one-year period for filing a refund claim under Section 11B commences from the date of payment. The Tribunal concurred with the interpretation that the "relevant date" for refund is the initial payment date, as per established legal principles and previous judicial decisions. Consequently, the appeal against the rejection of the refund claim was dismissed, affirming the order-in-original and the Commissioner (Appeals) decision. This detailed analysis highlights the key contentions, legal interpretations, and the final decision of the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore regarding the refund claim and the interpretation of the "relevant date" under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
|
