Royal Enfield Motors Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai)
CESTAT Chennai held that refund claim filed beyond statutory time limit of 6 months stipulated under section 104 of the Finance Act, 1994 is liable to be rejected. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee dismissed.
Facts- The appellant had filed a refund claim for an amount of Rs.1,79,46,788/- on 31.10.2017 claiming that the said amount was erroneously collected as service tax by SIPCOT on developmental charges. On verification, it was observed that service tax paid on developmental charges during the period from 1.6.2007 to 21.9.2016 was liable to be refunded in terms of sec. 104 of Finance Act, 2017. However, it was noticed that the refund application was time barred.
Hence Show Cause Notice dated 14.3.2018 was issued to the appellant proposing to deny the entire amount of refund on the ground that the refund claim was filed with a delay of 31 days, beyond the time-limit stipulated u/s. 104 of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994.
After due process of law, the Original Authority rejected the entire refund claim on the ground of time bar. Commissioner (Appeals) also rejected the appeal. Hence the present appeal before this Tribunal.
