Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. In House Products Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Service Tax, Mumbai on 25 September, 2013
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. Appeal No. ST/205/2006-Mum. (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. BR(87-88)HTC/26-27/2006 dated 12.04.2006 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise, Mumbai-I) For approval and signature: Honble Mr. S.S. Kang, Vice President Honble Mr. P.K.Jain, Member (Technical) ============================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see :
the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the :
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy :
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : authorities?
============================================================= M/s. In House Products Pvt. Ltd. :
Appellant VS Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai :
Respondent Appearance Shri Gurudev C. Madhom, Advocate for Appellant Ms. D.M. Durando, (A.R) for respondent CORAM:
Mr. S.S. Kang, Vice President
Mr. P.K. Jain, Member (Technical)
Date of hearing : 25/09/2013
Date of decision : 25/09/2013
ORDER NO.
Per : S.S. Kang
Heard both sides.
2. Appellant filed this appeal against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the refund claim by the appellants were rejected.
3. A refund claim of Rs.14,97,334/- is filed on 6.07.2004 in respect of the service tax paid during the period October 2001 to October 2002. This refund claim is rejected as time bar.
4. Another refund claim of Rs.5,31,607/- is rejected on the ground of unjust enrichment.
5. First we take up the refund claim of Rs.14,97,334/-. The refund claim was filed under the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act 1944, which are applicable to the refund of service tax in view of the provisions of Section 83 of the Finance Act. As per the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, the time limit for filing the refund is one year. Admittedly, the refund claim was filed on after one year and there is no provisions under the Central Excise Act or under the Finance Act for extension of time in respect of the refund claim under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. In view of this, we find no infirmity in the impugned order whereby the refund claim is rejected.
6. In respect of the refund claim of Rs.5,31,607/-, we find that the same has been rejected on the ground of unjust enrichment. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order gave a finding of the fact that the copies of records submitted by appellant reveals that appellants have charged the service tax to their clients.
7. The contention of appellant is that the service tax has been paid subsequently therefore there is no occasion to recover this amount. The appellant relied upon the balance sheet whereby it is mentioned that in view of the show cause notice dt. 27.11.06, amount has been deposited and the appellants are disputing the demand.
8. We find that in the present case, appellants are claiming the refund of Rs.5,31,607/-we find in the balance sheet amount is mention Rs.3,29,053/-). Further, we find that now by mentioning of the amount in the balance sheet does not prove that burden of duty has not been passed on. The appellants had not contradicted the finding of fact in the impugned order regarding unjust enrichment. In these circumstances, we find no merit in the appeal in this respect also. The appeal is dismissed.
(Dictated in court) (P.K. Jain) Member (Technical) (S.S. Kang) Vice President Sm ??
??
??
??
3