Deepak Pandey Vs Commissioner of Service Tax (CESTAT Delhi)
In the matter abovementioned CESTAT Delhi upholds order passed by AC and Commissioner (Appeals) who rejected claim of the appellant as time barred. Appeal was filed against the order Commissioner (Appeals) who dismissed the appeal filed by appellant against the order passed by AC rejecting the refund claim of the appellant. Appellant filed an application on 09.02.2017 claiming refund of service tax paid on Government work during the period from April 2015 to December 2015 on the basis of section 102 of the Finance Act, 1994 which came into effect on 14.05.2016. This application has been rejected for the reason that it had been filed beyond the period of six months prescribed u/s 102. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that section 102 provides time limit of six months for filing the refund application, hence AC correctly rejected the refund claim as being barred by time.
It was submitted on behalf of appellant that refund can be claimed by the appellant within a reasonable period of time. Reliance was placed on M/s Aadhar Stumbh Township Pvt. Ltd. (Service Tax Appeal No. 50046 of 2020) and decision of the Karnataka HC in CCE (Appeals) Banglore Vs. KVR Construction 2012 (26) S.T.R. 195 (Kar). On the other hand, revenue supported the impugned order and submitted that it is not open to the appellant to claim refund under sub-section (1) of the section 102. It placed reliance on MDP Infra (India) Pvt Ltd. versus Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & CGST 2019 (29) G.S.T.L 296 (M.P).
