2019 (1) TMI 718 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI – Refund claim – export of the output service – time limitation – Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 – Held that:- Filing of refund application is governed under the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as made applicable to the service tax matters under Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. The statute provides that the refund application should be filed with the competent authority before the expiry of one year from the relevant date – The appellant has not furnished any information with regard to non-filing of the claim application on 18.04.2016 and on 20.04.2016, which were not declared as public holidays and the Service Tax Department was functional during those days. It is evident that the refund application was filed beyond the stipulated time frame prescribed under Section 11B of the Act.
–
In this case, since the appeal of Revenue was allowed by the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground of limita
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
efore the Learned Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal of Revenue was disposed of vide impugned order dated 30.11.2017, wherein the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the adjudication order dated 24.08.2016 and allowed the appeal in favour of Revenue, holding that the refund claim is barred by limitation of time, in terms of the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 made applicable to the service tax matters under Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order, the appellant has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal. 2. The Learned Consultant appearing for the appellant submitted that the refund application was initially filed on-line on 14.04.2016 and due to error in the server, the same was not uploaded in the system and thereafter, was manually filed on 21.04.2016. With regard to the period of delay between the intervening days, he submitted that 14th to 17th of April, 2016 and 19.04.2016 were public holidays and the Se
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
case of S. Ramachandra Iyer Vs. M.A. Annamalai Chettiar and Others – AIR 1968 MADRAS 103 (V 55 C 25) and Pratapchand and Others Vs. Lakshman Prasad Gupta – AIR 1967 MADRAS 98 (V 54 C 26). 3. On the other hand, Learned DR appearing for the Revenue reiterated the findings recorded in the impugned order. He further submitted that since the statute mandates filing of refund application within one year from the relevant date, such statutory time limit should be strictly adhered to by the statutory authorities and no discretion has been vested to condone the delay in late filing of the refund application. To support of such stand, the Learned DR has relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Miles India Limited Vs. Assistant Collector of Customs – 1987 (30) ELT 641 (SC), Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh Vs. Doaba Co-operative Sugar Mills – 1988 (37) ELT 478 (SC) and Assistant Collector of Customs Vs. Anam Electrical Manufacturing Company – 1997 (90) ELT 260 (SC
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
n 14.04.2016, but failed due to upload of the same and the refund application was manually filed on 21.04.2016. It has further been stated that on 14th, 15th and 19th of April 2016, the office of the Service Tax Department was closed due to public holidays declared by the Government and after receiving the signed documents from Delhi, the refund application along with supporting documents was filed on 21.04.2016 before the jurisdictional service tax authorities. The appellant has not furnished any information with regard to non-filing of the claim application on 18.04.2016 and on 20.04.2016, which were not declared as public holidays and the Service Tax Department was functional during those days. It is evident that the refund application was filed beyond the stipulated time frame prescribed under Section 11B of the Act. The authorities functioning under the statute are guided by the provisions contained therein. No discretion has been vested under the statute to condone the delay in l
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =