Supreme Court Upholds Conviction as Husband Failed to Explain Wife’s Death in Matrimonial Home  ||  Supreme Court: Crime Scene Re-Enactment Does Not Always Violate Right Against Self-Incrimination  ||  Supreme Court: Cognizance Taken Without Hearing Accused under BNSS Section 223 is Void Ab Initio  ||  Supreme Court Upholds Will in Sister’s Favour, Says Excluding Natural Heirs is Not Suspicious  ||  Delhi HC: Absence of Public Witnesses and Videography in NDPS Recovery Relevant for Bail Decisions  ||  Raj HC Initiates Suo Motu Cognizance Over Severe Water Crisis in Jodhpur, Issues Interim Directions  ||  Del HC: Courts Cannot Direct, Monitor Inquiry Into Police Delay in Investigation After Bail Decision  ||  Supreme Court: After the BNSS, a Pre-Cognizance Hearing is Mandatory in PMLA Cases  ||  SC: Landowners Cannot be Forced to Waive Statutory Compensation to Claim Other Benefits  ||  Supreme Court: Banks are Lenient With Big Borrowers But Strict With Ordinary Loan Applicants    

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