2020 (2) TMI 397 - AT - Service Tax

Tribunal grants appellant timely refund claim under Central Excise Act

M/s Ahlcon Parenterals (India) Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax, Customs & Central Excise

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the refund claim was timely filed within the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise ... Refund of service tax - time limitation - Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD THAT:- In this case it is an admitted fact that appellant has filed refund claim within one year from the date of the order of the Hon’ble High Court wherein the appeal filed by the Revenue has been dismissed. In that circumstances, at this stage, the appellant has become entitled to claim refund claim of amount paid by them during the course of litigation. The appellant has filed refund claim in time in terms of Section 11B of the Act itself. Therefore, no question for rejection of refund claim as time barred by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) - appeal allowed - decided in favor or of appellant. Issues:1. Rejection of refund claim as time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.Analysis:The appellant filed an appeal against the rejection of their refund claim as time-barred. The case originated from a show cause notice issued in 2006 demanding service tax, which was later set aside by the Tribunal in 2008. Despite this, the appellant paid the service tax amount during the litigation and subsequently filed a refund claim in 2016 after the High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The Revenue challenged the refund claim on the grounds of being beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 11B of the Act. The Adjudicating Authority initially allowed the refund claim, but the Commissioner, on appeal by the Revenue, overturned this decision, leading to the appellant approaching the Tribunal.The main contention raised by the appellant was that they filed the refund claim within one year from the date of the High Court's order, making it timely and not subject to Section 11B of the Act. On the other hand, the Authorized Representative supported the initial rejection of the refund claim as time-barred. After hearing both parties, the Tribunal noted that the appellant indeed filed the refund claim within one year of the High Court's order dismissing the Revenue's appeal. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the appellant was entitled to claim the refund amount paid during the litigation period. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the refund claim was filed within the prescribed time limit under Section 11B of the Act and set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with consequential relief.In summary, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing that the refund claim was timely filed within the provisions of the law, specifically Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The decision highlighted the importance of the timeline from the date of the High Court's order in determining the admissibility of the refund claim, ultimately leading to the allowance of the appeal and providing the appellant with the relief sought.