By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, JAN 27, 2017: THESE are Revenue appeals.

The respondent had paid Service Tax on 29/30.03.2010 and interest on 20/26.04.2010.

The o-in-o dated 29.9.2010 confirmed the amounts paid but the Commissioner(A) vide order dated 7.4.2011 set aside the o-in-o and consequently the respondent filed a refund claim on 30.05.2011.

The original authority rejected the claim on the ground of limitation inasmuch as the amounts were paid in March/April 2010 but the claim was filed after one year on 30.05.2011.

The Commissioner(A) set aside this order and allowed the appeal.

Revenue is, therefore, aggrieved and has filed appeals before the CESTAT.

The AR submits that the claimant should have filed refund claim before the expiry of one year from the date of payment of service tax and that the clause "(ec)" of the Explanation in section 11B of the CEA, 1944 defining "relevant date" could not have been invoked by the Commissioner(A).

None appeared on behalf of the respondent.

The Bench extracted the Explanation clause "ec" which reads -

'Relevant date' means - "(ec) in case where the duty becomes refundable as a consequence of judgment, decree, order or direction of the appellate authority, Appellate Tribunal or any Court, the date of such judgment, decree, order or direction."

And observed -

"…Revenue has sought to limit this explanation to the judgment, decree, order or direction only in case where refund is under dispute. I find that there is no such reference in the explanation. In fact, the explanation clearly says that it applies to case where the duty becomes refundable "as a consequence of" judgment, decree etc. This clearly implies that the judgment, decree etc. need not be directly refunded and can be in relation to any precursor of refund."

Concluding that there is no merit in the appeals, the same were rejected.

(See 2017-TIOL-245-CESTAT-MUM)