9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (3) TMI 613 - AT - Service TaxRefund of excess tax paid - time limitation - such refund application was filed even after surrender of licence in 2012 - Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - period January, 2009 to March, 2009 - Held that - As has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. cited 1996 (12) TMI 50 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA all claims of refund, except those which arise as a result of declaration of unconstitutionality of provision where under the levy was created, have to be preferred and adjudicated only under the provision of respective enactment, which in the instant case is Section 11B of the Central Excise Act and Salt Act. Section 11B provides a stipulation of one year to claim refund - refund cannot be allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
Issues:
Challenge to rejection of refund application under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for excess payment made in 2009. Analysis: - The appellant challenged the rejection of a refund application filed in 2013 under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for an excess payment made in 2009. The appellant had inadvertently paid Service Tax in excess amounting to ?3,77,584 for the quarter January, 2009 to March, 2009. While part of the excess payment for subsequent quarters was adjusted, an amount of ?3,01,899 remained unadjusted after 31.03.2010 due to the closure of the factory. The appellant filed a refund claim, which was refused by the Deputy Commissioner of Service Tax, Pune, leading to an appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune-III. The appeal was dismissed as the refund claim was made after the limitation period had expired. The appellant cited judicial decisions to support the claim that double payment made inadvertently should not be treated as duty, and thus, the limitation period should not apply. However, the Authorized Representative for the respondent-department argued that Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could override in Service Tax matters, as held in previous court decisions. - The Tribunal considered the arguments from both sides and reviewed the case record. It was noted that the refund application was filed after the surrender of the license in 2012. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mafatlal Industries Ltd., it was emphasized that all claims of refund, except those arising from the declaration of unconstitutionality of the levy, must be adjudicated under the respective enactment. In this case, Section 11B of the Central Excise Act was applicable, which stipulated a one-year time limit for claiming a refund. The Tribunal concluded that the case laws cited by the appellant's counsel did not provide a basis for granting relief, as the limitation period under Section 11B applied. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, confirming the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune-III. - In the final order pronounced on 26.02.2019, the Tribunal upheld the decision to reject the refund application, emphasizing the applicability of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 in determining the time limit for claiming a refund in cases of excess payment made inadvertently. The Tribunal's decision was based on the interpretation of relevant legal provisions and previous court judgments, highlighting the importance of adhering to the statutory provisions governing refund claims in indirect tax matters.
|
