Supreme Court Explains that Comprehensive Motor Insurance Covers Occupants of a Vehicle  ||  Supreme Court: Judgments Operate Retrospectively Unless Made Prospective  ||  Supreme Court Clarifies Principles Governing Witness Recall under Order 18 Rule 17 of CPC  ||  Gujarat High Court: Res Judicata Prevents Trustees from Reopening Trust Property Disputes  ||  Allahabad HC: Trial Courts Cannot Examine Witnesses to Generate Fresh Evidence Before Cognizance  ||  Rajasthan HC: Funds Collected From an Illegal Toll Plaza Must Be Used For Tree Plantation  ||  Delhi HC: Minor’s Signature Alone Cannot Establish Consent for Pregnancy Termination  ||  Karnataka HC Allows ECIR Challenge under Article 226, Rejects ED’s Immunity Claim  ||  Allahabad High Court Upholds Transfer of a Dissolved Society's Assets to its Successor Company  ||  P&H HC: Cheque Bounce Cases Remain Compoundable Even After Appellate Courts Uphold Conviction    

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