2018 (12) TMI 1115 - AT - Service Tax

Refund 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 Rs. 1, 68, 647/- was pre-deposited and the service tax to the tune of Rs. 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.

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claim under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. Rejection of refund claim by the Department.
3. Time limit for filing refund claim.
4. Non-submission of documents as a ground for rejection.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed a refund claim of service tax under Section 11B, citing an Order-in-Appeal that set aside a service tax demand. The Department proposed to reject the claim for not meeting the conditions under Section 11B. The appellant argued that the refund claim was within the time limit and all necessary documents had been previously submitted during adjudication.

2. The main issue was whether the refund claim met the one-year time limit under Section 11B. The Tribunal analyzed the relevant date for the claim, which was the date of the appellate authority's order in favor of the appellant. The Tribunal noted that the Department had filed an appeal, and during the pendency of the appeal, the appellant was not required to file the refund claim. The claim was filed within the permissible time frame, as decided by the Tribunal's order.

3. Regarding the non-submission of documents, the appellant had pre-deposited a portion of the service tax and the rest was allowed by the Commissioner(Appeals). The Tribunal found that no additional evidence was necessary to prove the payment of service tax as claimed in the refund application. Therefore, the rejection of the claim on this ground was deemed unsustainable.

4. In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the Order of Commissioner(Appeals) and allowed the appeal, stating that the refund claim was filed within the prescribed time limit and the rejection based on non-submission of documents was unfounded. The appellant was entitled to the refund claimed.

This judgment clarifies the application of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act in determining the time limit for filing refund claims and emphasizes the importance of considering the relevant date for such claims, as well as the sufficiency of evidence provided in support of the claim.