9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (8) TMI 1524 - HC - Service TaxRefund claim - Time Limitation - Did the Tribunal fall into error in holding that only part of the amount claimed by the assessee was refundable and that the other part could not be repaid on account of expiry of limitation under Section 11(B) of the Central Excise Act or Section 27(c) of the Customs Act? Held that - This court is of the opinion that the CESTAT clearly fell into error - In the present case levy never applied a fact conceded by no less than the authority of CBEC - Krishna Carbon Paper Co. 1988 (9) TMI 50 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA was a case where principal duty was payable; excess amount had been paid on a mistaken notion with respect to the liability for excess production under a notification which was later discovered to be not correct - the general principle alluded to in Krishna Carbon Paper Co. would apply. The appellant shall be entitled to refund of entire amount with proportionate interest - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
1. Interpretation of limitation under Section 11(B) of the Central Excise Act and Section 27(c) of the Customs Act for refund claims. Analysis: The case involved a dispute regarding the refund of certain amounts claimed by the appellant/assessee, who was a registered society engaged in research in public economics and policies. The appellant had mistakenly paid certain amounts as service tax, which was later clarified by the CBEC to be non-taxable. The Deputy Commissioner refunded a part of the amount but denied the refund of ` 11,49,090/- due to the application being filed after the lapse of one year. The CESTAT upheld the denial based on the judgment in Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. Doaba Co-operative Sugar Mills, 1988. The appellant argued that since the amount was never payable due to the absence of a levy, the limitation period should start from the discovery of the mistaken payment, allowing the refund claim to be within the stipulated period. The Revenue, however, relied on the judgment in Collector of C.E., Kanpur vs. Krishna Carbon Paper Co., 1988, asserting that the refund claim must adhere to the statutory limitation prescribed in the Central Excise Act and related Rules. The High Court observed that the CESTAT erred in its decision. It differentiated the present case from Krishna Carbon Paper Co. (supra) by emphasizing that in the appellant's case, no levy was applicable, as confirmed by the CBEC. Therefore, the general principle cited in the Krishna Carbon Paper Co. case was not applicable. The High Court held that the refund claim should be governed by the general principle applicable in cases of mistaken payments, allowing the appeal and granting the appellant the refund of the entire amount with proportionate interest. In conclusion, the High Court allowed the appeal, directing the refund of the entire disputed amount with interest to the appellant. The judgment clarified the application of limitation under the Central Excise Act and the Customs Act in cases of mistaken payments where no levy was applicable, ensuring a just outcome for the appellant in this matter.
|
