9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (11) TMI 1267 - AT - Service TaxRefund of service tax - time limitation - refund claim was rejected as barred by limitation of time limit prescribed under Section 11B of CEA, 1944 applicable to service tax - N/N. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 - whether the appellant is claiming the refund of service tax or an amount paid by them mistakenly? HELD THAT - It is an admitted position in the facts of the case that during the period March 2015, the service provided by the appellant to MES was exempt from payment of service tax. Therefore, the amount paid by the appellant is not service tax. In that circumstances, the time limit prescribed under Customs Act or Central Excise Act is not applicable and the time limit prescribed as per the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of ASSISTANT COLLR. OF CUS. VERSUS ANAM ELECTRICAL MANUFACTURING CO. 1997 (1) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT is applicable i.e. 3 years. Admittedly, the appellant has filed refund claim within 3 years from the date of payment of the service tax, in that circumstances, the refund claim filed by the appellant is not barred by limitation - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
1. Whether the refund claim was rejected as time-barred. 2. Whether the time limit prescribed under Section 11B of CEA, 1944 is applicable to the refund claim. 3. Whether the appellant is entitled to claim a refund of the amount paid for the period March 2015. Analysis: Issue 1: The appellant appealed against the rejection of the refund claim as time-barred. The appellant, engaged in Construction Service, provided services to the Government for building MES. The service was initially exempt from service tax but later became taxable. The appellant paid service tax for March 2015 based on a notification effective from April 2015. The refund claim was filed on 07.11.2016, which was deemed time-barred under Section 11B of CEA, 1944. The appellant argued that since the service was initially exempt, the time limit does not apply. Issue 2: The appellant contended that the time limit under Section 11B does not apply as the service was initially exempt from tax. Citing relevant case laws, the appellant argued that the time limit prescribed under the Act is not applicable in cases where the amount paid was not service tax. The Authorized Representative, on the other hand, argued that all refunds are governed by Section 11B, citing Supreme Court decisions supporting the time limitation. Issue 3: The Tribunal analyzed the case and relevant legal precedents. The Tribunal noted that the service provided by the appellant to MES was exempt from service tax during March 2015. As the amount paid was not service tax, the time limit under the Customs Act or Central Excise Act did not apply. Following the decision in a Supreme Court case, the Tribunal held that the refund claim, filed within 3 years from the date of payment, was not time-barred. The Tribunal also referenced a Delhi High Court case supporting this interpretation. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the order rejecting the refund claim as time-barred. In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the refund claim was not time-barred as the amount paid was not service tax and the claim was filed within the applicable time limit.
|
