Ramesh Nair DECISION
Ramesh Nair, Member (J)
1. The matter was called out, None appeared on behalf of the appellant despite notice, it is observed from the record that the matter had came up for the hearing on 28 July, 2022 and 22 August, 2022, on both the earlier occasion none appeared on behalf of the appellant. Therefore, the appeal is taken up for disposal.
2. Shri J.A. Patel, Learned Superintendent (Authorized Representative) on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the finding of the impugned order. He submits that there is no dispute that the refund is filed for the excess payment of the Service Tax after period of 1 year. Therefore, the refund was rejected on the ground of time barred.
3. I have carefully considered the submissions made by learned AR and perused the records. There is no dispute in the fact that the appellant initially paid the Service Tax and the same was declared in the ST-3 returns and subsequently they found that an amount of Rs. 6,25,267/- was paid in excess for which they filed the refund. Admittedly the refund claim was filed after 1 year. Since the refund claim is governed by the Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 wherein there is a mandatory provision of limitation of 1 year from the date of payment. However, the appellant have filed the refund claim after 1 year, therefore the refund is clearly time barred in terms of Section 11B. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) also decided the matter by invoking the Section 11B. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Hence the same is upheld.
4. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
(Dictated and Pronounced in the open Court)
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.