Refund claim denied due to late filing under Central Excise Act; Appellant granted chance for fresh application.

The court held that the refund claim was governed by Section 11B(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and was filed beyond the prescribed limitation period. The appellant's claim of payment under protest lacked supporting evidence. The court ruled that the Supreme Court's decision in Bhayana Builders (P) Limited did not extend the limitation period for the refund claim. However, the appellant was granted the opportunity to file a fresh refund application based on a new cause of action provided by the Commissioner (Appeals). Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, allowing the appellant to file a new refund application before the original authority.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 11B(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 to the refund claim.
2. Timeliness of the refund application under Section 11B(1) of the Act.
3. Consideration of payment under protest.
4. Impact of the Supreme Court decision in Bhayana Builders (P) Limited on the refund claim.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Section 11B(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 to the Refund Claim:
The appellant, a private limited company engaged in construction services, claimed a refund of Rs. 53,48,526/- paid as service tax. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the refund application, citing it was filed beyond the one-year period stipulated in Section 11B(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal upheld this decision, noting that the refund claim fell within the purview of Section 11B(1), as the amount was initially paid as service tax and had the "colour of tax" until the Supreme Court's decision in Bhayana Builders (P) Limited clarified that materials supplied free of cost by the service recipient should not be included in the taxable value of services.

2. Timeliness of the Refund Application under Section 11B(1) of the Act:
The appellant paid the service tax between 27.08.2012 and 06.03.2013 but filed the refund application on 23.10.2014, beyond the one-year limitation period. The court emphasized that Section 11B(1) requires refund applications to be made in the prescribed form within one year from the relevant date. The appellant's letter dated 13.09.2013 was not considered a valid refund application as it did not meet the prescribed form and manner requirements.

3. Consideration of Payment Under Protest:
The appellant contended that the payment was made under coercion and threat, and thus under protest. However, the court found no material evidence to support this claim. The second proviso to Section 11B(1) exempts the one-year limitation if the payment is made under protest, but the court found no indication that the payment was made under protest at the relevant time.

4. Impact of the Supreme Court Decision in Bhayana Builders (P) Limited on the Refund Claim:
The appellant argued that the limitation period should be computed from the date of the Supreme Court's decision in Bhayana Builders (P) Limited, which clarified that the value of materials supplied free of cost by the service recipient is not exigible to service tax. The court rejected this argument, stating that Clause (ec) of Explanation (B) to Section 11B applies only to judgments, decrees, orders, or directions in cases involving the same parties. The court cited Mafatlal Industries Limited v. Union of India, emphasizing that an assessee must succeed or fail in its own proceedings and cannot claim a refund based on another person's case.

Conclusion:
The court held that the refund claim was governed by Section 11B(1) of the Act and was filed beyond the prescribed limitation period. The appellant's contention that the payment was made under protest was unsupported by evidence. The Supreme Court's decision in Bhayana Builders (P) Limited did not extend the limitation period for the appellant's refund claim. However, the Tribunal's decision allowed the appellant to file a fresh refund application based on a new cause of action provided by the Commissioner (Appeals), which was not challenged by the department. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, but the appellant was granted liberty to file a fresh refund application before the original authority.

---