SC: Filing a False FIR Alone does not Amount to Abetment of Suicide  ||  SC: Police Cannot Probe Offences under Pre-Conception & Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act  ||  SC: UP Gangsters Act Creates no Offence, Perpetuates Violence against Citizens  ||  SC: Caste Abuse in Private Space without Public Presence is not SC/ST Act Offence  ||  SC Reduces Judicial Service Practice Norm to 1 Year; Mandates Training & Clerkship  ||  SC: Wife’s Income does not Reduce Father’s Duty to Maintain Children  ||  SC: Government Cannot Revisit PSC Eligibility Decision When Service Rules Make it Final  ||  Allahabad HC: S.34 IPC Applies if Co-Accused Shares a ‘Functional Relationship’ with Offence  ||  P&H High Court: PSC Cannot Introduce Minimum Interview Marks After Medical Faculty Selection Begins  ||  MP HC: Comprehensive Insurance Doesn't Mean Unlimited Passenger Liability Without Terms    

Jethabhai Kamabhai Prajapati vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax -I - (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal) (22 Aug 2022)

Refund claimed after one year is time barred in terms of provisions of Section 11B of Central Excise Act

MANU/CS/0205/2022

Service Tax

In facts of present case, the refund is filed for the excess payment of the Service Tax after period of 1 year. The refund was rejected on the ground of time barred, Hence, present appeal. Issue raised in present case is whether Appellant is entitled to refund in view of limitation period prescribed.

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 of Act. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) also decided the matter by invoking the Section 11B of Act. There is no infirmity in the impugned order. Hence the same is upheld. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Tags : REFUND   PROVISION   TIME BARRED  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved