Supreme Court: Asking a Woman to Adjust in Marriage Does Not Amount to Cruelty By In-Laws  ||  Supreme Court Reiterates That Police Must Obtain Magistrate’s Permission For Further Investigation  ||  Supreme Court Upholds GST on Online Gaming, Ruling it Falls under Betting and Gambling  ||  Supreme Court: ECI Can Examine Citizenship For Electoral Rolls, But its Ruling is Not Final  ||  Supreme Court: Centre Must Consider State’s Views Before Rejecting All India Services Officer's VRS  ||  Madras High Court Bans Cow and Calf Slaughter For Bakrid, Saying it is Not an Essential Sacrifice  ||  Gauhati High Court: Confessions under Section 164 CrPC are Inadmissible if Police are Present  ||  Delhi HC: On-Duty Driver is Entitled to Compensation Unless Murder Was Personal and Targeted  ||  SC: High Courts Exercising Probate Jurisdiction Can Order Probes Into Estate Irregularities  ||  SC: High Courts Exercising Probate Jurisdiction Can Order Probes Into Estate Irregularities    

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