Ker. HC: Gain from Property Kept for Investment Purpose to be Taxed Under Capital Gains  ||  Cal. HC: Arbitrator Relying on Unverified Evidence is Contrary to Fundamental Policy of Indian Law  ||  Delhi High Court: Educational Institutions Strong Pillar of Democracy  ||  Bombay HC: If Ignorance Was an Excuse Every Accused Would Claim Unawareness of Law  ||  Calcutta High Court: Warrant of Arrest Should Not be Issued Mechanically  ||  Del. HC: Information Seeker has No Locus Standi in Penalty Proceedings Under Section 20 of RTI Act  ||  Ker. HC: Response Sought from Govt. Regarding Tourism Dept. Vehicles Carrying Dignitaries  ||  HP HC: Adultery Not a Ground to Automatically Disqualify Divorced Wife from Receiving Maintenance  ||  Ker. HC: HRC Being Quasi Judicial Body is Duty Bound to Comply With Principles of Natural Justice  ||  Del. HC: Independent Assessment of Award in Appeal u/s 37 of A&C Act Cannot be Undertaken by Courts    

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


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.


Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved