TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1482X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11B ibid, the time limit provided there-under are strictly applicable for consideration of such application. In this case, the refund application was filed on 18.05.2009, claiming refund of Service Tax paid during the period July 2008 to December, 2008 - Section 11B in unambiguous terms provides that refund claim has to be filed within one year from the date of payment of duty (Service Tax). The refund application was filed and decided under Section 11B ibid, the time limit prescribed therein should be strictly followed in entertaining the refund application. Since the adjudicating /appellate authorities are created under the statute, are duty bound to obey the provisions contained therein - rejection of refund application by the auth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8377; 32,20,709/- on the ground of unjust enrichment. Further, Service Tax of ₹ 4,43,000/- paid through Cenvat Credit was also denied for refund. Out of the remaining amount of ₹ 17,09,351/-, the refund application for ₹ 11,49,099/- was denied on the ground that the same is barred by limitation of time. The appellant is not contesting denial of refund application in respect of Service Tax paid through Cenvat Account. However, the appellant has assailed the impugned order on the ground that refund claim cannot be denied on the ground of limitation provided under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as made applicable to the Finance Act, 1994. 3. The ld. Counsel submitted that the activities provided by the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... applicable for consideration of the refund application and the authorities functioning under the statute are not empowered to relax the time limit prescribed there-under. To support such stand, the ld. DR has relied on the judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Miles India Limit 1987 (30) ELT 641 (S.C.), Daoba Co-operative Sugar Mills 1988 (37) ELT 478 (S.C.), Anam Electrical Manufacturing Company 1997 (90) ELT 260 (S.C.) and Porcelain Electrical Manufacturing Co. 1998 (98) ELT 583 (S.C.). 5. Heard both sides and perused the case records. 6. It is an admitted fact on record that the appellant got itself registered with the Service Tax Department and deposited the Service Tax for providing the management consulta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rules framed there-under, then such statutory provisions will have no application and the decision will be guided by the General Law and the date of limitation would be the starting point, when the mistake or the error comes to light; whereas, in making claims for refund before the Departmental Authority, an assessee is bound within the four corners of the statute and the period of limitation prescribed in the Central Excise Act and the Rules framed there-under must be adhered to. Further, the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Anam Electrical Manufacturing Company (supra) have also held that the period prescribed by the Central Excise Act/ Customs Act for filing a refund application in the case of illegal levy cannot be extended by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
