TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 719X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n has to be filed before expiry of one year from the relevant date. In this case, it is an admitted fact on record that the refund application was filed by the appellant beyond the statutory time limitation prescribed under the statute. Therefore, the refund sanctioning authority adjudicating the refund issue under the statute has no option or scope to take a contrary view, than the limitation period prescribed in the statute, to decide the issue differently. In other words, when the wordings of Section 11B are clear and unambiguous, different interpretations cannot be placed by the authorities functioning under the statute and they are bound to obey the dictates/provisions contained therein. The refund application was filed and decid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has preferred this appeal before this Tribunal. 2. Learned Consultant appearing for the appellant submitted that since the appellant had deposited the service tax under mistaken belief, which was not otherwise payable under the statute, it should be entitled for refund of such excess service tax and the refund application cannot be rejected as barred by limitation of time. He has relied on the judgment of Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Parijat Construction v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nashik 2018 (359) ELT 113 (Bom.) to state that period of limitation prescribed under Section 11B of the Act is not applicable to the refund claim of service tax, which was paid under mistaken belief. 3. On the other hand, the learned D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant date for the purpose of computation of the limitation period for filing of the refund application. In the case of the present appellant, the relevant date should be considered as the date of payment of service tax. Section 11B ibid mandates that the refund application has to be filed before expiry of one year from the relevant date. In this case, it is an admitted fact on record that the refund application was filed by the appellant beyond the statutory time limitation prescribed under the statute. Therefore, the refund sanctioning authority adjudicating the refund issue under the statute has no option or scope to take a contrary view, than the limitation period prescribed in the statute, to decide the issue differently. In other words, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der Section 11B ibid, the time limit prescribed there-under was strictly applicable for deciding such issue. Since, the authorities below have rejected the refund applications on the ground of limitation, I do not find infirmity in such orders, as the same are in conformity with the statutory provisions. Since the issue arising out of the present dispute is no more open for any debate, in view of the well laid judgments delivered by the Hon ble Apex Court, I am of the view that there is no need for any study of the judgment/orders relied upon by the learned consultant for the appellant for deciding the issue differently. 7. In view of the foregoing discussions and analysis, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order dated 28.02.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
