TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 276X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e claim of refund made by the petitioner, the limitation prescribed under the said provision would also not be applicable and the general provisions under the Limitation Act, 1963 would be applicable. The Application under Section 11B cannot be rejected on the ground that is bared by limitation, provided for under Section - The claim for return of money must be considered by the authorities - appeal allowed. - C.M.A.No.601 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 28-6-2018 - S. Manikumar And Subramonium Prasad, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr.P.Ayyamperumal For the Respondents : Mr.G.M.Syed Nurullah Sheriff JUDGMENT ( Judgment of the Court was made by Subramonium Prasad, J. ) Instant Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the Final Order No.42618 of 2017, dated 27.10.2017, on the file of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai. 2. Briefly stated, the facts leading to this appeal are follows: The appellant Assessee renders export services from Parvathipuram Nagercoil to its client Alpin Management Partners, USA, and in the process paid a total sum of ₹ 9,72,458/- as service tax during the financial year 2015-16. It may be noted that of this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case of Union of India Vs. ITC Ltd. reported in (1993) Supp. IV SCC 326, while dealing with the question of refund of excess excise paid held:- 8. In Shri Vallabh Glass Works Ltd. V. Union of India, this Court, while examining the question as to what is the point of time from which the limitation should be deemed to commence observed that relief in respect of payments made beyond the period of three years may not be granted from the date of filing of the petition, taking into consideration the date when the mistake came to be known to the party concerned. Just as an assessee cannot be permitted to evade payment of rightful tax, the authority which recovers tax without any authority of law cannot be permitted to retain the amount, merely because the tax payer was not aware at that time that the recovery being made was without any authority of law. In such cases, there is an obligation on the part of the authority to refund the excess tax recovered to the party, subject of course to the statutory provisions dealing with the refund. 9. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the High Court, while disposing of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es of excise, the basic requirement for levy thereof is the existence of excise duty. In the present case Oil Cess is not a duty of excise and hence, the basic requirement of levy of such cesses is not satisfied. Furthermore, for the purpose of levy of Education Cess and Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Cess, two other conditions precedent, are required to be satisfied, viz., (i) that the duty of excise should be levied by the Central Government in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue); and (ii) the duty of excise should be collected by the Central Government in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue). In the present case, since the machinery provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the rules framed thereunder have been incorporated in the OID Act, the second condition precedent is satisfied, viz. that the cess is collected by the Central Government in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue); however, the first condition with regard to levy of such duty of excise by the Central Government in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) is not satisfied inasmuch as the Oil Cess under the OID Act is levied by the Ministry of Petroleum and Na ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it. Since the period of limitation begins to run only from the time when the applicant comes to know of the mistake, the application made by the petitioner was well within the prescribed period of limitation. Moreover, since the very retention of the Education Cess and Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Cess by the respondents is without authority of law, in the light of the decision of this court in Swastik Sanitarywares Ltd. v. Union of India (supra), the question of applying the limitation prescribed under section 11B of the CE Act would not arise. Even in case where any amount is paid by way of self assessment, in the event any amount has been paid by mistake or through ignorance, it is always open to the assessee to bring it to the notice of the authority concerned and claim refund of the amount wrongly paid. The authority concerned is also duty bound to refund such amount as retention of such amount would be hit by Article 265 of the Constitution of India which mandates that no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law. Since the Education Cess and Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Cess collected from the petitioner is not backed by any auth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ground that it was barred by limitation. We are, therefore, of the view that the impugned order is unsustainable. We accordingly allow the present appeals and quash and set aside the impugned order, insofar as it is against the appellant in both appeals. We fully allow refund of ₹ 8,99,962/- preferred by the appellant. We direct that the respondent shall refund the amount of ₹ 8,99,962/- to the appellant within a period of three months. There shall be no order as to costs. 12. Further, the claim of the respondent in refusing to return the amount would go against the mandate of Article 265 of the Constitution of India, which provides that no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law. 13. On an analysis of the precedents cited above, we are of the opinion, that when service tax is paid by mistake a claim for refund cannot be barred by limitation, merely because the period of limitation under Section 11B had expired. Such a position would be contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, and therefore we have no hesitation in holding that the claim of the Assessee for a sum of ₹ 4,39,683/- cannot be barred by limitation, and o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
