TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 1336X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Since the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal, there are no merits in this appeal. Appeal dismissed. - Service Tax Appeal No. 1397 of 2010 - FINAL ORDER NO. A/60335/2020 - Dated:- 2-3-2020 - Dr D M Misra, Member (J) and Mr Sanjiv Srivastava, Member (T) Appellant Rep by: None Respondent Rep by: Shri Bhasha Ram, AR ORDER This appeal is directed against order in appeal No 36/ST/APPL/CHD- II/2010 dated 8.03.2010 of Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeal) Chandigarh II. By the impugned order Commissioner (Appeal) has upheld the order in original No 58/AC/DB/STC/08 dated 30.12.2008 of assistant Commissioner Central Excise Dera Bassi holding as follows: 15. Having regard to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... el Tubes Ltd [2007 (218) ELT 563 (T)] The refund claim has been filed only for that amount the burden of which has not been passed on to their customer/ clients. Hence the same is not hit by bar of unjust enrichment. In support they had produced the certificate dated 5.1.2010 of Chartered Accountant Shri S K Aggarwal before the Commissioner (Appeal). They rely on various circulars and order of various authorities to argue that the amount deposited by them was not tax, because as per these authorities the tax was not payable by them under the category of Construction of Complex Services. 4.1 The matter was listed for hearing on 03.09.2019, 17.12.2019 and on 02.03.2020. None appeared for hearing on any of these dates despit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibunal In case of Veer Overseas Ltd [2018 (15) GSTL 59(T-LB)] Since the issue is squarely covered by the decisions as above the appeal needs to be rejected. 5.1 We have considered the impugned order along with the submissions made in appeal memo and by the authorized representative during the course of hearing. 5.2 The short point for consideration in this appeal is whether the refund claim filed by the appellant is hit by limitation as provided under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as made applicable to Service Tax matters by Section 83 of Finance Act,1994. 5.3 We find that the issue involved in the matter is squarely covered by the decision of the Larger Bench of Tribunal In the case of Veer Overseas Ltd [2018 (1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers under the Constitution, in writ-jurisdiction. It is clear that neither the Jurisdictional Service Tax Authority nor the Tribunal has such Constitutional powers for allowing refund beyond the statutory time limit prescribed by the law. Admittedly, the amount is paid as a tax, the refund has been claimed from the Jurisdictional Tax Authorities and necessarily such tax authorities are bound by the law governing the collection as well as refund of any tax. There is no legal mandate to direct the tax authority to act beyond the statutory powers binding on them. The Hon ble Supreme Court in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. (supra) categorically held that no claim for refund of any duty shall be entertained except in accordance with the provisions of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct, 1962. We also note that in Assistant Collector of Customs vs. Anam Electrical Manufacturing Co. 1997 (90) E.L.T. 260 (S.C.) referred to in the decision of the Tribunal in XL Telecom Ltd. (supra), the Hon ble Supreme Court held that the claim filed beyond the statutory time limit cannot be entertained. 9. The Apex court in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. (supra) observed that the Central Excise Act and the Rules made thereunder including Section 11B too constitute law within the meaning of Article 265 and that in the face of the said provisions which are exclusive in their nature no claim for refund is maintainable except and in accordance therewith. The Apex court emphasized that the provisions of the Central Excise Act also con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
