TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1328X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made applicable to Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. Since the said statutory provision mandates that refund claim has to be filed within one year from the relevant date (i.e. from the date of payment of service tax amount), the statutory authorities cannot interpret the language of the statute otherwise, in order to decide the issue differently. It is evident from the terms and conditions provided in the work order that the contractor was not providing any ‘manpower recruitment and supply agency service’. Therefore, the assessee-appellant, in the capacity of recipient of services, will not be liable to pay service taxon reverse charge mechanism on such category of service provided by the contractor. Appeal dismissed - decided agai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ming to the definition of taxable service under the category of manpower recruitment and supply agency service . However, the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the adjudication order, so far as it rejected the refund application on the ground of limitation. Vide the impugned order; the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has held that amount paid by the assessee appellant before 13/02/2013 is clearly barred by limitation of time. On merits, the impugned order has accepted the appeal filed by the assessee-appellant, holding that the amount paid by it on or after 13/02/2013 should be available for refund. 3. The grievance of assessee-appellant is that it was under no statutory obligation to pay service tax on the manpower recruitment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rejected the refund application on the ground that part of the claim was filed beyond the stipulated time limit, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order, so far as it rejected the appeal on the ground of limitation. In this context, we find that the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of M/s Veer Overseas Ltd., vide Interim order No. 37/2018 dated 27/03/2018 has held that the statutory time limit cannot be extended by any authority .For arriving at such conclusion, the Larger Bench has referred to and relied upon the judgement of Hon ble Supreme Court, in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd v. Union of India [1997 (89) ELT 247 (SC)],Miles India Limited vs. Assistant Collector of Customs [1987 (30) ELT641 (S.C.)] and Assis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
