TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 243X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Hon ble Madras High Court decision in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai vs. Nataraj Venkat Associates [2014 (5) TMI 179 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] laying down that the refund claim beyond the period of limitation provided under law is totally barred by limitation. Even the fact that the tax was paid under a mistake of law, cannot be adopted for grant of such refund. Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tax of ₹ 5,07,400/- against their Service Tax liability, under the reverse charge mechanism, for the period April, 2017 to June, 2017. 2. During processing of the aforesaid refund claim, it was noticed that the appellant had filed the refund claim much beyond the time limitation prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as made applicable to the Service Tax matters vid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Central Excise Act, 1944, was not applicable. In this regard, they have placed reliance upon a few judicial prouncements. 5. Commissioner (Appeals), while disposing of the appeal observed as under:- 4.1 I have gone through the records of the case the averment made at the time of the personal hearing. I find that the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 made appli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the learned A.R. appearing for the Revenue, I find that every refund claim arises on account of fact that the same was not required to be paid. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Porcelain Electric Magg. Co. vs. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi 1998 (98) E.L.T. 583 (S.C.), has held as under:- Refund Limitation Refund claim filed before Departmental authorities to be govern ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
