TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 563X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in terms of the provisions of Section 11B of Central Excise Act inasmuch as there is no other provision in the Act to deal with the refunds. The limitation as provided under Section 11B is to be applied to each and every refund claim. The refunds in the present case having been admittedly filed beyond the period of limitation of one year are barred by limitation. Appeal dismissed - Restoration of appeal application disposed off. - ROA Application No. E/ROA/70146/2018 in APPEAL No. E/1096/2010-EX[SM] - Final Order No 72133/2018 - Dated:- 6-9-2018 - Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) For the Appellant : Shri Rajesh Chhibber (Advocate) For the Respondent : Shri Mohd Altaf (Asstt. Commr. AR ORDER PER: ARCHA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rits, in terms of the law declared by the Hon ble Bombay High Court but rejected the claim on the point of limitation. 5. Accordingly, the only issue to be decided in the present appeal is as to whether the refund claim filed by the appellant on 24.06.2009 for the period 04.05.2006 and 19.07.2007 would be barred by limitation or not. The learned Advocate submits that Bombay High Court s decision in the case of Indian National Shipowners Association (supra) was pronounced on 23.03.2009 and as such the refund claims filed by the appellant on 24.06.2009 are required to be held as having been filed within the limitation period, by treating the date of Bombay High Court s decision as the relevant dated. He also submits that inasmuch as the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nces requiring a particular date to be treated as the relevant dated for the purpose of computation of limitation. There is no such circumstance so as to treat the judgment of the Higher Authorities as the relevant date. As such the plea of the learned Advocate that Bombay High Court s decision having been pronounced on 23.03.2009, the said dated should be taken as the relevant date and the refunds having been filed within the period of one year from the said relevant date cannot be appreciated. No artificial relevant date can be introduced by the Tribunal, as the same would be against the legal principles of interpretation. 7. Further the contention of the assessee that such collection of service tax by the Revenue was unauthorized and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... making claims for refunds before the departmental authority an assessee is bound within four corners of the Statute and the period of limitation prescribed in the Central Excise Act and Rules framed therein must be adhered to as the authorities functioning under the Act are bound by the provisions of the Act. 8. In view of the foregoing decisions of the Hon ble Supreme Court, the limitation as provided under Section 11B is to be applied to each and every refund claim. The refunds in the present case having been admittedly filed beyond the period of limitation of one year are barred by limitation. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and appeal is rejected. ROA application also gets disposed of. (Dictated and pronounced in Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
