Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2022 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (6) TMI 612 - AT - Service TaxRefund of excess paid service tax - amount paid under mistake of law - claim rejected as the same has been filed after one year of the deposit invoking section 11 B of Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD THAT:- It is observed that there is no denial on part of the Department about claim of appellant that the amount of Rs.2,83,505/- is an excess payment than the amount of tax to be deposited by the appellant. Consequently, it becomes clear that the amount is not the amount as would have been authorized by law. The adjudicating authority while denying the refund of said excess amount has invoked section 11B of Central Excise Act 1944. The bare perusal makes it clear that the Section applies for the refund of such amount which is an amount of duty or tax. As already observed amount in question is in the form of deposit. The issue is no more res-integra as has already been decided by this Tribunal in the case of R.S. CHEMICALS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NOIDA [2017 (4) TMI 884 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD] where it was held that the amount excess paid in December, 2003 is in the nature of Revenue deposit. Further, there is no limitation for refund of Revenue deposit - the refund claim is not barred by limitation. Even the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in MAFATLAL INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [1996 (12) TMI 50 - SUPREME COURT], as has been relied upon by Commissioner (Appeals) has, while distinguishing the cases of refund into three broad categories, has clarified that in cases where the levy of a tax has been held to be (1) unconstitutional; or (2) void for want of inherent jurisdiction, it is open for the assessees to take advantage of the declaration of the law so made and claim refunds on the ground that they paid the tax under a mistake of law. This is because such claims are outside the ambit of the Excise Act. The limitation of section will not be applicable. Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly applied the obiter-dicta of Mafatlal Industries case - Refund accordingly is held to have been wrongly rejected - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|