Case Law Details
Om India Trading Company Private Limited Vs Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise (CESTAT Kolkata)
Introduction: The recent judgement of CESTAT Kolkata in the case of “Om India Trading Company Private Limited Vs Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise” upheld the rejection of a service tax refund claim. The refund claim, filed by the exporter, Om India Trading Company, was found to be filed beyond the prescribed time limit as per Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, leading to its dismissal.
Analysis: In this case, Om India Trading Company initially filed a service tax refund claim under Notification No. 41/2012 ST. Post-sanction of the said refund claim, the appellant filed another refund claim citing a miscalculation in the initial claim. The second refund claim, however, was filed beyond the prescribed time limit, leading the adjudicating authority to reject it. This rejection was later confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals).
Conclusion: CESTAT Kolkata’s judgement reiterates the importance of adhering to the procedural time limits specified under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. Despite the appellant’s reasoning that the second claim was a continuation of the initial claim, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal due to the late filing.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT KOLKATA ORDER
The appellant is an appeal against the impugned order wherein the refund claim has been rejected as barred by limitation by the adjudicating authority and the same has been confirmed by the Learned Commissioner (Appeals).
2. The facts of the case one that the appellant is an exporter of goods who filed refund claim under Notification No.41/2012 ST dated 29.06.2012 with relevant documents. The said refund claim was sanctioned to the appellant thereafter, appellant realize at they have claimed less amount of refund and filed another refund claim on 15.06.2017 for differential amount of refund. The said refund claim was rejected by the adjudicating authority holding that the same is barred by limitation. On appeal, the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) also rejected the refund claim. Against the said order, the appellant is before me.
3. The Learned Counsel for the appellant submit that initially by mistake, the appellant claimed less refund and on realizing that they have claimed less refund, the appellant filed another refund claim therefore, the impugned refund claim is in continuation of the earlier refund claim therefore, the same cannot be dismissed as barred by limitation. It is only due to the appellant’s mistake they claimed less refund therefore, their refund claim be sanctioned.
4. Heard the Learned Counsel for the appellant.
5. I find that in this case initially appellant filed refund claim which was already sanctioned to the appellant, therefore the matter comes to end. Later on, filing the refund claimed by the appellant cannot be entertained as this stage being continuation of the initial refund claim by the appellant and it is admitted fact the impugned refund claim has been filed beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 11B of the Act.
6. In that circumstances, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order the same is upheld and the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open court)
