2019 (1) TMI 721 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of service tax - service provided by the club to its members - principles of mutuality - time limit prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that - It is an admitted fact on record that the refund application was filed by the appellant beyond the statutory time limitation prescribed under the statute. Therefore, the refund sanctioning authority adjudicating the refund issue under the statute has no option or scope to take a contrary view, than the position prescribed in the statute, to decide the issue differently. In other words, when the wordings of Section 11B are clear and unambiguous, different interpretations cannot be placed by the authorities functioning under the statute and they are bound to obey the dictates/provisions contained therein. In view of the above settled principles of law and in view of the fact that the refund applications were filed and decided under Section 11B ibid, the time limit prescribed there-under was strictly applicable for deciding such issue. Since, the authorities below have rejected the refund applications on the ground of limitation, there is no infirmity in such orders, as the same are in conformity with the statutory provisions. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Claim for refund of service tax amounting to ?20,38,255 filed by the appellant.
- Applicability of time limitation for filing a refund application under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
- Interpretation of statutory provisions regarding the relevant date for computation of limitation period.
- Whether the refund application filed beyond the statutory time limit can be entertained by the jurisdictional authorities.
- Impact of judgments on the refund claim in cases of unconstitutional tax levy.

Analysis:

1. Claim for Refund: The appellant, engaged in providing taxable services, filed a refund application for service tax paid during 2005-06 to 2014-15. The application was rejected by the original authority and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) citing a time limit issue under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

2. Applicability of Time Limitation: The appellant contended that the refund claim was filed within the limitation period of the Limitation Act, 1963, due to the unconstitutional nature of the tax levy under the category of service provided. The Revenue argued that the time limit prescribed under the statute is strictly applicable, and the authorities cannot relax it.

3. Interpretation of Statutory Provisions: Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 provides the relevant date for computing the limitation period for filing a refund application. The appellant filed the applications beyond the statutory time limit, leading to rejection based on the clear and unambiguous wording of the section.

4. Entertainment of Refund Application: The authorities are bound by the period of limitation provided under the statute, as per established legal principles. The jurisdictional authorities cannot entertain refund applications filed beyond the prescribed time limit, as per various judgments cited by both parties.

5. Impact of Unconstitutional Tax Levy: Refund claims in cases of unconstitutional tax levies fall outside the scope of the taxing statute. The refund claim under such circumstances can be maintained through a suit or writ petition, not under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The judgment in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. supports the rejection of the refund application in this context.

6. Conclusion: The impugned order upholding the rejection of the refund application by the Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals-I), Mumbai, was deemed appropriate and in conformity with the statutory provisions. The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed based on the above analysis and legal principles.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues involved, the arguments presented by both parties, the interpretation of relevant statutory provisions, and the impact of established legal principles on the outcome of the case.