Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2022 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (4) TMI 1105 - AT - Service TaxRefund of unutilized deposit lying in Personal Ledger Account (PLA) - rejection on the ground of time bar - HELD THAT:- In the first place, that the Revenue has nowhere disputed appellant’s claim as regards its claim that the refund it sought was nothing but the one lying in their PLA, unutilized, which was to be utilized by them towards future duty, at the time of clearance of their final product. It is also not in dispute that with the introduction of GST from 01/07/2017, the appellant’s deposit in their PLA remained unutilized and hence, the refund of the same was rightly claimed. When an amount is deposited to PLA, to be appropriated towards duty which may fall due in future and there having no appropriation, the same does not pass on to the Government unless the goods are cleared, and the duty is levied, such money lying deposited in PLA cannot be utilized. With the introduction of GST from 01/07/2017, such utilization was ruled out and hence, what the appellant sought was its own money. Further, Section 11B prescribes time limitation for claiming refund of duty & interest, if any, paid. In the Order-in-Original, even though Appellate Authority observed that the appellant filed a refund claim of ₹ 20,38,157/- which was the advance cash balance lying in their PLA as on 30/06/2017, but later, in the same order, has proceeded tangentially, to hold that there were lack of supporting documents, to hold that the appellant’s claim was for refund of ‘Advance Cash Payment’ and has tried to justify the same, finally though, rejection has been made on the ground that refund claim was made beyond one year’s time limitation under Section 11B ibid. When the ‘deposit’ in PLA is not disputed, the authorities cannot treat the same, just to reject a valid and rightful claim, as anything other than deposit. Though an attempt is made to give a different colour to the ‘deposit’, but justification is not forthcoming, with due support of any valid documents, anywhere in the orders of lower authority. The appellant’s claim for refund of their ‘deposit’ lying unutilized in their PLA is perfectly valid, which being not a duty, time limit prescribed under Section 11B ibid. could not apply. The denial of the same is held unsustainable being contrary to the settled position of law - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|