9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 598X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... other than service tax and the refund has to be considered in the light of statutory provisions governing service tax - since a statute has provided for specific provisions of limitation, the Limitation Act, 1963 is not applicable - appellant claimed refund in terms of Section 11B and the claim within the normal period of limitation stands sanctioned and the claim beyond the limitation period stands rejected - ST/492/2010 - 19/2012 - Dated:- 30-12-2011 - Shri M. Veeraiyan, J. REPRESENTED BY : Shri Badarinath, Chartered Accountant, for the Appellant. Shri Ganesh Havanur, Addl. Commissioner, for the Respondent. [Order]. This is an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 42/2010, dated 18-1-2010. 2. He ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r mistaken belief. The refund of such amount paid into service tax head should have been refunded without reference to the limitation prescribed under Section 11B of Central Excise Act. In support of his claim, he relies on the following decisions :- (i) Indo-Nippon Chemicals Co. Ltd. v. Union of India [2005 (185) E.LT. 19 (Guj.)] (ii) Hind Agro Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs [2008 (221) E.L.T. 336 (Del.)] (iii) Karnik Maritime Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of C. Ex., Mumbai [2007 (6) S.T.R. 314 (Tri.-Mumbai)] (iv) Natraj and Venkat Associates v. Asst. Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai [2010-TIOL-67-HC-MAD-ST] = 2010 (17) S.T.R. 3 (Mad.) = 2010 (249) E.L.T. 337 (Mad.)] (v) KVR Construction v. Commissione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the decision in the case of Indo-Nippon Chemicals Co. Ltd. related to the petitioner therein being totally oblivious of Public Notice No. 6/95 issued by the Central Government on 9-1-1995 in the context of benefit available under Notification No. 204/1992. The Hon ble High Court held that in the facts of the said case the benefit of refund should have been granted without reference to the time limit prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. The facts of the said case are different from the facts of the present case. It is settled law that since a statute has provided for specific provisions of limitation, the Limitation Act, 1963 is not applicable. The Tribunal is bound by the specific provisions relating to limitation in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
