TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Refund Claim Rejected for Late Filing; Tribunal Emphasizes Strict Adherence to Statutory Deadlines in Finance Act Disputes.</h1> <h3>M/s. Jupiter International (Sales) Versus Commissioner of G.S.T. and Central Excise, Patna Commissionerate</h3> The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the appellant's refund claim filed under Section 102 of the Finance Act due to being filed beyond the six-month ... Refund claim relating to Special provision for exemption in certain cases relating to construction of Government buildings - time limitation - refund claim filed beyond the time period of six months prescribed under Section 102(3) of the Finance Act, 2016 - HELD THAT:- The refund claim in this case has accrued on account of the provisions of Section 102 of the Finance Act, 2016. The Finance Act has provided a specific time-limit of six months from the date of assent to the Finance Bill for filing the refund claim. Accordingly, the refund claim should have been filed on or before 14.11.2016. However, the appellant has filed the refund claim only on 23.01.2017, which is beyond the time period of six months prescribed under Section 102(3) of the Finance Act, 2016. Hence, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly upheld the rejection of refund claim by the original adjudicating authority. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of M/S MDP INFRA (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER, CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE & CGST [2019 (2) TMI 208 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] has held that The exemption was revived by notification dated 1-3-2016. But since it was prospective in effect, the appellant was not entitled for any exemption, which the appellant was aware of and with open mind and eyes deposited the service tax due with interest. It was only by virtue of subsequent legislation the notification was made effective from retrospective date with the stipulations that refund can be claimed within specific time provided. There was thus no ambiguity nor any dispute as would have prevented the appellant from seeking refund within the period of limitation. There are no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) - the impugned order upheld - appeal dismissed. Issues Involved: The issue involves the rejection of a refund claim filed under Section 102 of the Finance Act on the ground of limitation, with the appellant contending that the time period under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act should apply.Summary of Judgment:Issue 1 - Refund Claim Rejection on Ground of Limitation:The appellant filed a refund claim under Section 102 of the Finance Act, which stipulates a time limit of six months from the date of assent to the Finance Bill for filing the claim. The appellant, however, filed the claim beyond this prescribed period. The refund claim was rejected on the basis of this limitation. The Tribunal found that the claim was indeed filed beyond the specified time limit and upheld the rejection by the original adjudicating authority. The Tribunal cited a similar view taken by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in a relevant case.Issue 2 - Applicability of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act:The appellant argued that the time period prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act should apply to them, implying that their refund claim filed after 254 days from the date of assent to the Finance Bill was not time-barred. However, the Tribunal held that the specific time limit provided under Section 102 of the Finance Act, 2016, governed the refund claim in question, and the claim filed beyond this period was rightly rejected.Separate Judgment by the Judges:The Tribunal, in line with the decisions of the Hon'ble Madras High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, upheld the rejection of the refund claim, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the statutory time limits set forth in the Finance Act. The Tribunal found no fault in the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and consequently rejected the appeal filed by the appellant.This summary provides a detailed breakdown of the judgment, highlighting the issues involved and the Tribunal's decision on each issue, while retaining the legal terminology and key points from the original text.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
