2018 (7) TMI 1378 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI – Refund of service tax paid – VAT and service tax paid on same transactions – rejection of refund on the ground of time bar – Held that:- There is no dispute about the fact that VAT and service tax are mutually exclusive levies. If VAT is paid on anything, the same would not attract service tax – However, in the present case, it is seen that the appellants have not paid VAT on the logistic charges and it is only on the basis of a proposal by the VAT Department to levy VAT on logistic charges, they have approached the Service Tax Department for refund of the service tax.
–
In any case and any view of the matter, the refund claims stands filed after a period of one year from the relevant date in terms of Section 11B of the Act – All the refund claims are governed by the provisions of Section 11B and the time limit prescribed therein is required to be adhered to by the Revenue authorities. Tribunal being a creature of the law and working un
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
before the Service Tax jurisdictional Central Excise officer on the ground that VAT as well as service tax cannot be paid in respect of the same transactions as they are mutually exclusive. The said refund claim was filed by them on 5.5.2016 to the extent of ₹ 30.95 lakhs approximately. 2. The lower authorities has rejected the refund claim on the issue of time bar. It was also seen by the authorities that the VAT has been charged only on the value of the cars and not on the value of the logistics and there was only a demand by the VAT department to include the logistic charges in the value of the cars for the purpose of VAT. The order of the original adjudicating authority rejecting the refund claim was upheld by Commissioner (Appeals) and hence the present appeal. 3. For better appreciation, the reasoning adopted by the Commissioner (Appeals) for rejection of the refund claim is reproduced below: 9 Section 11B of Central Excise, Act, 1944 is a self contained provision governin
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Apex Court s decision in the case of Porcelain Electrical Mfg. Co. Versus Collector of C. Ex.,New Delhi-1998 (98) E.L.T. 583 (S.C.) wherein it was held as under:- Refund-Limitation-Refund claim filed before Departmental authorities to be governed by the time limit provided under the statue-General Law of Limitation not available-Decisions where assessee has invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court and the Courts have applied the period of limitation of 3 years- Inapplicable to cases where the refund application has been moved before the Revenue authority. 4. Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant has not disputed the fact that the refund claims stand filed by them after the period of one year. He has however argued the matter on merits that since there is a proposal by VAT department to levy VAT on logistic charges, no service tax would be payable by them. For the above proposition, he has relied upon various decisions of the Courts. 5. I find that there is no dispute abo
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =