Case Law Details
Rattanindia Power Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi)
Section 11B doesn’t apply to refunds pertains to an amount paid under mistake without any liability.
Facts- That appellant is registered under service tax and are engaged in distribution of electricity during the period from July 2012 to June 2017. The appellant had paid service tax on non air conditioned contract carriage under rent a cab service under reverse charge mechanism. However, later it was realised that the service provided by them was exempted vide notification no. 25/12-ST dated 20.6.2012 vide entry no. 23 (b). Consequent thereto that the appellant filed a refund claim of Rs.7,71,592/-dated 28.9.2018. However, vide show cause notice no. 2659726598 dated 21.2.2020. The said refund claim was proposed to be rejected as being barred by limitation in terms of section 11B of Central Excise Act 1994. The said proposal was initially confirmed vide order in original no. 14/2019 dated 25.9.2020. The appeal thereof has been rejected upholding the said OIO vide order in appeal no. 12/2021-22 dated 24.9.2021. Being aggrieved the appellant is before this Tribunal.
Conclusion- In the present case also, due to the exemption of notification no. 25/2012 dated 20.06.2012 the services on which the appellant had paid service tax i.e. non air conditioned contract carriage under rent a cab service was the exempted service. Hence at the time of the payment the payment had no colour of liability as already discussed above section 11B of Excise Act is not applicable. Hence, the bar of limitation under section 11B also cannot be made applicable upon the said amount.
Held that the issue has repeatedly been clarified about non applicability of section 11B upon such refunds which pertains to an amount paid under mistake without any liability.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
