2017 (12) TMI 555 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim rejected due to limitation period under Central Excise Act. Upheld decision stresses statutory time limits.

M/s B.E.C. Fertilizers Versus CCE, Raipur

The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) to reject the refund claim based on the limitation period under Section 11B of the Central ... Refund claim - time limitation - Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that: - Since, the statutory provision mandates filing of refund application within one year from the relevant date, the time limit prescribed thereunder was to be strictly adhered to by the authorities functioning under the statute - In this case, admittedly, the refund application was filed beyond the period of one year from the relevant date. Thus, the said application, is clearly barred by limitation of time - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. Issues:Rejection of refund claim on the ground of limitation.Analysis:The case involves a dispute regarding the rejection of a refund claim based on the limitation period. The appellant filed a refund claim seeking a refund of service tax deposited due to an oversight, as the service tax on GTA service was exempted by a specific notification. However, the claim was disallowed by the original authority citing it was filed beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, applicable to service tax. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection of the refund claim.The appellant argued that since the service tax on GTA service was unconditionally exempted, there was no requirement for payment, and the inadvertent payment should be refunded without considering the limitation period under Section 11B. The appellant relied on various judicial precedents to support this argument.On the other hand, the respondent contended that the time limit under Section 11B is strictly applicable, and authorities cannot relax it even for inadvertent payments. The respondent cited judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to emphasize that authorities must adhere to the statutory provisions and limitations.After hearing both sides and examining the case records, it was established that the refund application was filed beyond the prescribed one-year period from the date of payment. The Tribunal noted that the limitation period must be strictly followed as mandated by the statute. Citing Supreme Court judgments, it emphasized that the authorities must adhere to the prescribed time limits for refund applications, and the period cannot be extended. Therefore, the rejection of the refund application by the lower authorities was deemed in line with statutory provisions. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) based on the legal principles and precedents discussed.In conclusion, the Tribunal found no fault in the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) to reject the refund claim based on the limitation period, as the statutory provisions regarding time limits for refund applications must be strictly adhered to by the authorities.