75th Founding Day Lecture Meeting on “India@2030” Know More

February 2016

2015 (40) STR 1066 (Del.) Alar Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Delhi-I

By Puloma Dalal
Jayesh Gogri
Mandar Telang Chartered Accountants
Reading Time 1 mins
fiogf49gjkf0d

Limitation period of 1 year as provided u/s. 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 would apply to refund claims of taxable services only.

Facts
Refund claim of the appellant was rejected as time-barred vide section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 without considering the appropriateness of taxability on services. Appellant claimed that it exported services and facts of the present case were identical to other three appeals heard jointly by CESTAT wherein refund was allowed.

Held
Having regard to pertinent judicial pronouncements, it was observed that only if refund claims pertain to taxable services, limitation period of 1 year would apply vide section 11B (supra). Accordingly, the matter was remanded back to decide the matter as per the terms provided by Delhi High Court in the present case.

Download PDF

You May Also Like

Concept of “Gross Receipts” vis-à-vis MVA T Rules, 2005

2015 (40) STR 833 (Sikkim) Future Gaming & Hotel Services (Pvt) Ltd vs. UOI