TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 534X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibed under Section 11B ibid, the creatures of Central Excise Act or Customs Act 1962 can not arrogate to themselves similar powers, they remain bound by the boundaries of the statute which created them while the Superior Courts not being creatures of the said statutes are not so bound. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ST/53981/2014-ST(SM) - Final Order No. A/50902/2015-SM(BR) - Dated:- 27-3-2015 - R K Singh, Member (T),J. For the Appellant : Shri A K Batra, CA For the Respondent : Ms Suchitra Sharma, DR ORDER Per: R K Singh: The appellants filed appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 24/SM/ST/D-II/14/ST/DLH dated 17.04.2014 which upheld the Order-in-Original No. 170/2013-R dated 22.08.2013 in terms of which out of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egistration, returns, refunds, ST-3A, audit, dispute resolutions are covered in ACES. III. In the light of the foregoing clarifications the refund claim filed by them electronically should be treated as the claim filed under Section 11B. IV. Alternatively they argued that what was deposited by them cannot be treated as Service Tax as the same was not payable and so the provision of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 are not applicable and therefore refund claim cannot be treated to be time barred and cited several judgments to that effect. V. The Central Government cannot enrich itself from the amount which was not due. 2. I have considered the contentions of the appellants. It is a fact that the Trade Notice dated 17. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice on 25.8.201. The fact of submission of the claim on 13.12.2010, has been admitted by the Range Superintendent in his letter dated 13.05.2011. Since the appellants have submitted the claim electronically in pursuance of Board Circular as well as the trade notices, it will be in interest of justice not to treat the claims as time barred as the refund claims were electronically submitted on 13.12.2010. I therefore set aside the Order-in-Appeal and hold that claims can not be rejected as time barred in view of the fact that the claims were submitted electronically within time. The appeals filed by the appellant are allowed. In another case of Angiplast Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Ahmedabad 2010 (19) STR 838 (Tri.-Ahmd.) CESTAT held to the effect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct or under Section 27 of the Customs Act 1962. In the case of Miles India Ltd Vs. Assistant Commissioner Customs 1987 (30) ELT 641 the Supreme Court held that the authorities under a statute are bound by the period of limitation provided under that statute. Yet again in the case ofAssistant Collector of Customs Vs. Anam Electrical Manufacturing Co. 1997 (90) ELT 260 (S.C.) the Supreme Court again clarified as under:- Where a Refund application was filed by the manufacturer/purchaser beyond the period prescribed by the Central Excise Act/Customs Act in that behalf, such petition must be held to be untenable in law. Even if in any appeal, suit or writ petition, direction has been given that the refund application shall be considered wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
