2020 (2) TMI 44 - AT - Service Tax

Tribunal upholds dismissal of appeal for service tax refund due to time limit constraints

The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, dismissing the appellant's appeal regarding a refund claim for service tax paid under mistake of fact/law. It was ... Time Limitation - applicability of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act - works contract service - Circular No.108/2/2009 dated 29.1.2009 - HELD THAT:- This issue has been considered by the Larger Bench in the case of M/S VEER OVERSEAS LTD. VERSUS CCE, PANCHKULA [2018 (4) TMI 910 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH] and after examining the various decisions of the Tribunal and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MAFATLAL INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [1996 (12) TMI 50 - SUPREME COURT] the Larger Bench has held that the time limit prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 will govern claim for refund of service tax. There is no infirmity in the impugned order, which is upheld by dismissing the appeal of the appellant - decided against appellant. Issues:Whether the period of limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act is applicable in the case of refund claims for service tax paid under mistake of fact/law.Analysis:The appeal was filed against an order rejecting a refund claim for service tax paid during a specific period. The appellant argued that the order was unsustainable as it relied on a decision not applicable to the case. The appellant claimed to have paid the service tax under a mistake of fact/law and filed a refund claim after realizing the error following a Board Circular. The issue revolved around the applicability of the limitation period under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act to the refund claim.The authorized representative of the appellant contended that the impugned order was not legally sound as it relied on a decision that did not address the issue of refund in the context of the relevant Board Circular. The appellant argued that the demand for service tax was against the authority of law and opposed to the Constitution. On the other hand, the respondent defended the order, citing a decision by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal that settled the issue in question.After considering the submissions and examining the legal provisions, the Tribunal found that the issue at hand had been settled by the Larger Bench in a previous case. The Tribunal held that a claim for refund of service tax is governed by the provisions of Section 11B for the period of limitation. It was emphasized that the statutory time limit cannot be extended by any authority. The Tribunal also noted that the Bombay High Court had previously held that the period of limitation under Section 11B was applicable to refund cases, especially when the tax was paid under a mistake of fact/law.In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order, dismissing the appeal of the appellant based on the established legal principles regarding the limitation period for refund claims under the Central Excise Act. The judgment was pronounced on 27/01/2020.