2022 (12) TMI 470 - AT - Service Tax

Tribunal Upholds Refund Claim Rejection: No Protest = No Refund

The tribunal dismissed the appeal regarding a refund claim rejection due to limitation. The appellant's argument that the amount paid should be considered ... Rejection of refund claim of amount paid under protest - time limitation - applicability of second proviso to Section 11B of CEA - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that when the amount was paid during investigation no formal protest was launched at the time of the said deposit. It is also not in dispute that duty was otherwise leviable and it was not a tax collected under mistake of law or unconstitutionally. It is also not in dispute that refund claim has been filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 11B. In the case of THE KISAN COOPERATIVE SUGAR FACTORY LTD. VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [2017 (11) TMI 1486 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] relied by appellant there is clear finding of the tribunal that the duty has been paid under protest and therefore, the facts are different from the instant case. In the instant case there is no finding that duty has been paid under protest. Appeal dismissed. Issues:Refund claim rejection on the ground of limitation.Analysis:The appeal was filed against the rejection of a refund claim by M/s. John Energy Ltd. on the basis of limitation. The appellant contended that the amount paid during investigation should be considered as duty paid under protest, invoking the second proviso to Section 11B to argue against the application of limitation to their refund claim. The appellant cited various decisions in support of their argument.The learned AR argued that the issue of limitation in such cases has been addressed by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of AJNI INTERIORS, where it was held that limitation applies in such circumstances. This decision was further upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The AR also relied on the decision of the tribunal in the case of RATNAMANI METALS & TUBES LTD.The tribunal considered the submissions and found that no formal protest was launched at the time of the deposit made during investigation. It was established that the duty was leviable, not collected under a mistake of law, and the refund claim was filed beyond the prescribed limitation period under Section 11B.The main defense of the appellant was that the amount paid should be treated as paid under protest, citing the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad, which referred to the Supreme Court's decision in the case of MAFATLAL INDUSTRIES LTD. However, this argument was deemed inapplicable as the duty was not paid under court orders in the instant case.The tribunal highlighted the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of AJNI INTERIORS, which emphasized that the payments made by the petitioner were in the nature of excise duty and not deposits. As the payments were not made under protest, the second proviso to Section 11B was not applicable, and the refund claim was rightly rejected as time-barred.The tribunal distinguished the appellant's reliance on various case laws by noting the differences in the factual scenarios of those cases compared to the present case. Ultimately, the tribunal dismissed the appeal based on the precedent set by the Hon'ble High Court in the case of AJNI INTERIORS, which was upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court.In conclusion, the tribunal dismissed the appeal based on the established legal principles and the precedents set by the higher courts, emphasizing the importance of timely filing refund claims within the prescribed limitation period.