2017 (11) TMI 37 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of service tax excess paid - GTA Service - abatement - Section 11B - Held that - it is evident that the refund claim has been filed by the appellant under Section 11B ibid. The said statutory provision mandates the time limit of one year from the relevant date for filing the refund application - In the present case, as per clause (f) in explanation (B), contained in Section 11B ibid, the relevant date should be construed as the date of payment of duty - Since, no ambiguity arises in plain reading of the provisions of Section 11B ibid, different interpretations can not be placed by the authorities functioning under the statute and are bound to obey the dictates/ provisions contained therein. In view of the settled position of law and in view of the fact that the refund application was filed and decided under Section 11B ibid, the time limit prescribed therein should be strictly followed in entertaining the refund application. Since the adjudicating /appellate authorities are created under the statute, are duty bound to obey the provisions contained therein. Therefore, the rejection of refund application by the authorities below is in conformity with the statutory provisions. The time limit prescribed in Section 11B ibid is strictly applicable for entertaining the refund application, even if the service tax was paid erroneously, due to incorrect interpretations of the statutory provisions or the notifications issued thereunder - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against impugned orders passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Meerut regarding refund of excess service tax paid under reverse charge mechanism.

Analysis:
1. Issue of Refund Application and Limitation Period:
The appellant filed a refund application claiming refund of excess service tax paid under reverse charge mechanism. The refund claim was rejected by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) on the ground of limitation as per Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant argued that the excess tax deposited should be considered as a mere deposit and not actual service tax, hence the limitation period under Section 11B should not apply. The appellant relied on various judicial decisions to support this argument. However, the Revenue contended that the time limit prescribed under Section 11B is strictly applicable for considering refund applications, citing Supreme Court judgments to emphasize the binding nature of statutory provisions on authorities.

2. Interpretation of Section 11B and Precedents:
The Tribunal examined the provisions of Section 11B and the explanations therein. It noted that the relevant date for computing the limitation period is the date of payment of duty as per the plain reading of the statute. Referring to the Supreme Court judgment in Daoba Co-operative Sugar Mills, it emphasized that authorities must adhere to the statutory provisions for filing refund claims. The Tribunal highlighted that in cases of illegal levy, the period prescribed by the Central Excise Act for filing refund applications cannot be extended. It also mentioned the importance of following the time limit prescribed in the statute for entertaining refund applications.

3. Application of Precedents and Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the refund application was filed and decided under Section 11B, hence the time limit prescribed therein should be strictly followed. It noted that the decisions relied upon by the appellant did not discuss the Supreme Court judgments cited by the Revenue. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the rejection of the refund application by the lower authorities, stating that they were duty-bound to adhere to the statutory provisions. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the appellant based on the settled legal position and the strict application of the time limit under Section 11B for refund applications.

In summary, the Tribunal upheld the rejection of the refund application, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the statutory provisions, specifically the time limit under Section 11B, for filing refund claims related to excess service tax paid under reverse charge mechanism.