TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (9) TMI 1417
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l No. 51/2018 (R), dated 18-9-2018, sanctioned it partly and rejected it to the tune of Rs. 7,07,894/- on the ground that the same is hit by time bar. Aggrieved, the appellant appealed to the first appellate authority who, rejected the appeal and upheld the order of the original authority. Hence this appeal. 3. The brief facts of the refund claim narrated in the Order-in-Original were as follows : (a) On 16-10-2017, the assessee paid an amount of Rs. 7,73,803/- (Rs. 7,65,785/- + Rs. 8,018/-) to discharge their Service Tax liability for the return period of April, 2017 to June, 2017 and it is the last return of Service Tax regime. (b) Later it has come to the knowledge....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g remedy on the ground that they were entitled to refund of the amount paid for the second time on 3-4-2017 under Challan No. 10426, being unaware of the earlier payment of Service Tax made on 17-5-2016, is a new plea which has no basis in the impugned order. In consequence, the instant appeal filed by them cannot be considered to have been made in relation to the claim of refund made before the original authority and which has been rejected by him." Thus, wholly the first appellate authority rejected the appeal. 5. Learned Consultant for the appellant submits that the amount which they have claimed as refund pertains to the unutilized amount of Service Tax which has been deposited by them through a challan but which has not been ut....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e applicant's account current maintained with the Principal Commissioner of Central Excise or Commissioner of Central Excise;" 6. He would submit that Section 11B applies to even cases where the amounts have been deposited and have not been utilized. When asked as to why the limitation under Section 11B should not apply to them when the section itself applies and if they could pick and choose parts of the section which would apply to them and parts which do not, Learned consultant submits that the entire Section 11B applies to their case in total. However, a period of limitation of one year has to be reckoned from the relevant date. As per the explanation to Section 11B the relevant date is defined as follows : "(B) "r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....liability for the duty leviable on his production of certain goods, if after the manufacturer has made the payment on the basis of such rate for any period but before the expiry of that period such rate is reduced, the date of such reduction; (e) in the case of a person, other than the manufacturer, the date of purchase of the goods by such person; (ea) in the case of goods which are exempt from payment of duty by a special order issued under sub-section (2) of Section 5A, the date of issue of such order; (eb) in case where duty of excise is paid provisionally under this Act or the rules made thereunder, the date of adjustment of duty after the final assessment there....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... have considered the arguments on both sides and perused the records. It is not in dispute that the application of refund was rejected to the extent of Rs. 7,07,894/- on the ground of time bar. It is also not in dispute that this pertains to an amount deposited vide challan dated 17-5-2016 and the application for refund was filed beyond one year from the date of this challan. It is also evident that the appellant had raised some other grounds before the first appellate authority which are not part of the decision in the order-in-original rejecting their appeal. On this ground, the first appellate authority has rejected the appeal. 10. The questions to be considered in this case are as follows : (1) W....