Supreme Court: Anti-Suit Injunction Cannot Rest on Speculation of Unenforceable Foreign Decree  ||  SC: High Court’s Location doesn't Become Arbitration Seat Merely by Appointing Arbitrator  ||  SC Disapproves PIL Challenging Inter-Se Evaluation of Tender Bids  ||  Delhi HC: Bail Grant or Cancellation Cannot Depend on Monetary Settlement With Complainant  ||  Kerala HC Directs Bar Council to Publish List of Advocates Practising Without AIBE Clearance, CoP  ||  Rajasthan HC: Candidate Cannot Blame E-Mitra for Failing to Correct Caste Category Within Deadline  ||  Patna HC: Mere FIR Registration cannot Justify Cancellation of PDS Licence  ||  Calcutta HC: NEET Medical Board Cannot Reassess Disability Percentage of PwBD Candidates  ||  Madras HC: MLAs Cannot Challenge Assembly Vote Later if They Raised No Objection During Voting  ||  Karnataka HC Upholds DRDO Land Acquisition, Citing Primacy of National Security    

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