2023 (10) TMI 51 - AT - Service Tax

Service tax refund claim denied due to expiry of limitation period under Central Excise Act.

The Tribunal upheld the rejection of a claim for refund of service tax amounting to Rs. 17,98,429 as the claim was filed beyond the one-year limitation ... Refund of service tax - claim rejected stating that the claim was filed after expiry of one year from the relevant date (date of payment of tax) - Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD THAT:- The original authority and appellate authority have held that the refund claim was filed beyond the limitation prescribed by Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 - On perusing the impugned order-in-appeal it is noted that learned Commissioner (Appeals) has followed the ruling by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of COLLECTOR OF CE., CHANDIGARH VERSUS DOABA CO-OPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS [1988 (8) TMI 103 - SUPREME COURT]. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has reproduced the headnotes in his order which clearly indicate that Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that for the refund claims made before the departmental authorities, limitations provided under Customs Act and Central Excise Act are applicable. Under the provisions of Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944, the refund claim has to be filed within one year from the relevant date and in the present case, relevant date is date of payment of service tax. It is clear from the record that the present refund claim was not filed within one year from the date of payment of service tax. There are no infirmity in the impugned order - appeal dismissed. Issues involved:- Claim for refund of service tax filed beyond the limitation period as per Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944.Summary:The appellant submitted a claim for refund of service tax amounting to Rs. 17,98,429 on 25.03.2019, based on a Memorandum of Understanding with M/s. Amar Builders dated 25.09.2012. The claim was rejected by the original authority citing Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which requires the claim to be filed within one year from the relevant date, i.e., the date of payment of tax. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal.Appellant's Argument:The appellant argued that the relevant date for the refund claim should be considered as 25.03.2019, the date of termination of the Memorandum of Understanding, not the date of payment of tax.Revenue's Argument:The Revenue contended that Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 applies to service tax matters, specifying that the claim for refund must be filed within one year from the date of payment of tax. Since the appellant made the payment in 2012, the claim filed in 2019 was beyond the prescribed time limit.Tribunal's Decision:After reviewing the submissions and the precedent set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh vs. Doaba Co-operative Sugar Mills, the Tribunal found that the refund claim was indeed filed beyond the one-year limitation period from the date of payment of service tax. Citing Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order and rejected the appeal.