Supreme Court: Right to a Speedy Trial Cannot Override NDPS Act Bail Conditions  ||  SC: Relatives Cannot be Implicated in Bigamy Solely Based on Knowledge of a Second Marriage  ||  Supreme Court: Service Inam Land Attached to a Mosque Constitutes Waqf Property and is Inalienable  ||  Supreme Court: Court Cannot Order an Accused to Surrender While Denying Anticipatory Bail  ||  Supreme Court: Landlord’s Legal Heirs May Amend an Eviction Suit to Include Bona Fide Need  ||  Supreme Court: Unsuccessful Party Can Invoke Section 9 of the Arbitration Act Even After an Award  ||  Karnataka High Court: Accused Cannot be Required to Share Live GPS Location as a Condition of Bail  ||  Guj HC: Plaintiff in Specific Performance Suit Must Prove Readiness &Willingness to Perform Contract  ||  Madras HC: Transgenders are Children of God, Tragedy Lies in Society’s Blindness, Not Their Birth  ||  Del HC: False Educational Qualification Declaration does not amount to Corrupt Practice U/S 123(4)    

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