Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2018 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (12) TMI 1115 - CESTAT NEW DELHIRefund claim - time limitation - applicability of Section 11B of Central Exercise Act - Held that:- Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Limited Vs. Union of India [1996 (12) TMI 50 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] as has been relied upon by the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case Veer Overseas Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Panchkula [2018 (4) TMI 910 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH] wherein it was held that for entertaining the refund claim of the amount paid by mistake, the time limit prescribed under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 is not applicable. Whether the refund claim in question is within one year of the time limit as prescribed under 11B? - Held that:- The appellant was not supposed to file the refund claim during the pendency of the Appeal. It stands clear that duty became finally refundable to the appellant only after the decision of the CESTAT and as per above said sub clause (ec) of Clause B, the claim could have been filed within one year form the date of this Tribunal Order i.e. till October 2017. The claim has been filed in March 2017. The same is therefore held to be well within the period of limitation. Refund claim also rejected on the ground of non-submission of documents - Held that:- The service tax to the tune of ₹ 1,68,647/- was pre-deposited and the service tax to the tune of ₹ 3,05,124/- which was not initially admitted by the adjudicating authority but was subsequently allowed by Commissioner(Appeals). Thus, no more evidence, at all is required about the proof of payment of service tax as claimed vide the impugned refund claim - rejection on this ground is also not sustainable. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|