Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2019 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (12) TMI 941 - AT - Service TaxRefund of service tax - time limitation - whether provisions of Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944, would apply to the refund of service tax claimed beyond the normal period of limitation, prescribed under the said section? - HELD THAT:- In terms of the provisions of Section 11B, any refund, arising to an assessee, has to be filed within the period of limitation provided under the said section. The said section, nowhere makes any distinction between the refund of tax/duties having been filed under a mistaken belief or otherwise. Every refund arises to the assessee only and only when the same is not payable. As such any duty or tax, which was not payable, but was paid by an assessee, is required to be refunded to the assessee. If such refund are allowed without considering limitation, the provisions of section 11B would become futile and otiose and nothing would remain in section 11B regarding limitation to be applied to such refund claims. It is well settled law that any interpretation which leads to rendering any provisions of law as futile has to be avoided. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PORCELAIN ELECTRICAL MFG. CO. VERSUS COLLECTOR OF C. EX., NEW DELHI [1994 (11) TMI 145 - SUPREME COURT] has clearly held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the excise authorities working under the Act are bound by the provisions of the Act and cannot exercise jurisdiction which the Hon'ble High Court exercised in terms of their writ jurisdiction. In the absence of any dispute to the fact that the refund claim stands made after a period of one year do not sustain - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
|