2020 (4) TMI 445 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of unutilized CENVAT Credit - Post GST era - time limitation - Applicability of clause B(f) of the Explanation in Section 11B of the Act - HELD THAT - Every refund claim arises on account of fact that the same was not required to be paid. Reference can be made to the Hon ble Madras High Court decision in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai vs. Nataraj Venkat Associates 2014 (5) TMI 179 - MADRAS HIGH COURT laying down that the refund claim beyond the period of limitation provided under law is totally barred by limitation. Even the fact that the tax was paid under a mistake of law, cannot be adopted for grant of such refund. Refund cannot be allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Time limitation for filing refund claim under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. Eligibility for refund of unutilized input tax credit under the Goods & Service Tax regime.
3. Application of the time limit for refund claims before Departmental authorities.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a manufacturer of machinery for Indian Railways, sought a refund of unutilized Cenvat credit post the introduction of the Goods & Service Tax regime. The refund claim of ?12,68,033/- was filed on 31.12.2018, after the tax rate disparity between raw materials and finished products became apparent. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the claim citing time limitation under clause B(f) of the Explanation in Section 11B of the Act.

2. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection on grounds of being time-barred, a fact not disputed by the appellant's advocate. Despite other issues, the appellate tribunal found the appeal could be disposed of based on the limitation aspect alone. Citing legal precedents, including the Porcelain Electric Magg. Co. case and the Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai vs. Nataraj & Venkat Associates case, it was emphasized that refund claims filed beyond the statutory limitation are not permissible, even in cases of tax payment under a mistake of law.

3. The tribunal reiterated that refund claims before Revenue authorities are bound by statutory time limits, as highlighted in the Porcelain Electric Magg. Co. case. Referring to the Madras High Court decision in the Nataraj & Venkat Associates case, it was concluded that claims exceeding the prescribed time limit are unequivocally barred by limitation. Consequently, the tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision to reject the appellant's refund claim, emphasizing the statutory nature of time limitations in such matters.