Interest refund claim dismissed for late filing under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1994. Failure to include in initial application barred claim.

The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the interest refund claim due to time limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1994. The appellant's failure to include the interest claim in the initial application, filing it separately after the one-year limit, rendered it time-barred. The absence of evidence of protest payment further supported the decision, leading to the dismissal of the appeal and emphasizing the importance of claiming interest refunds along with duty refunds under Section 11B.

---

---

Issues:
Refund claim rejection for interest amount based on time limitation under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1994.

Analysis:
The appeal challenges the rejection of a refund claim for interest amount by the adjudicating authority, upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), due to being filed beyond the prescribed time limit. The appellant, a service tax registrant for Business Auxiliary Service, received commission in foreign currency for connecting Indian clients to foreign suppliers. The appellant deposited service tax and interest on export of services, seeking a refund under CBEC Circular No.111/05/2009-ST. While the service tax refund was granted, the interest refund claim was rejected for being filed after one year from the relevant date.

The appellant argued that the interest refund application was a continuation of an earlier application and should not be time-barred under Section 11B. The Department contended that the refund claim exceeded the one-year limit and was not paid under protest. The adjudicating authority rejected the claim solely on the basis of the late filing, without evidence of protest payment by the appellant.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's initial application did not mention the interest amount refund, which should have been claimed along with the duty refund under Section 11B. As the interest refund claim was filed separately after the one-year limit, it was deemed time-barred. Additionally, no proof existed of the interest payment being made under protest. Consequently, the refund application was deemed not maintainable under Section 11B, upholding the Commissioner's decision and dismissing the appellant's appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the rejection of the interest refund claim due to time limitation, emphasizing the necessity to include interest claims along with duty refund applications under Section 11B. The absence of evidence of protest payment further weakened the appellant's case, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

---