SC: Subsidy Taxability Depends on its Purpose under The Income Tax Law  ||  MP HC:Revenue Authority’s Decision Can’t Operate as Res Judicata in Absence of Express Statutory Bar  ||  SC: Breakup Followed by Suicide does not Automatically Amount to Abetment to Suicide  ||  SC: Election Petition under Representation of the People Act Must be Filed Personally by Petitioner  ||  Patna HC: Template Arrest Memo cannot Satisfy Mandate under Article 22 of Constitution  ||  MP HC: Delayed Cruelty FIR not Counterblast When Wife “Remains Silent” to Save her Married Life  ||  MP HC:Revenue Authority’s Decision Can’t Operate as Res Judicata in Absence of Express Statutory Bar  ||  Patna HC: Signature Mismatch alone cannot Prove OMR Tampering  ||  J&K&L HC: Bail can be Set Aside if Contrary to Statutory Mandate  ||  Kerala HC: Headmistress’s Churidar cannot Bar Entry, Clothing Choice is A Fundamental Right    

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