9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 466X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 50,91,030/- paid during the period 2005-2006 to 2009- 2010 on the ground that the taxable services were exported out of country. The claim for refund/rebate was made under Notification 11/2005-ST dated 19/04/2005 issued under Rule 5 of Export of Services Rules, 2005. The Original Authority rejected the claim as time barred in terms of Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944. On appeal, vide the impugned order the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the original order. 2. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that originally the appeal was returned back by the registry in terms of Section 35B of Central Excise Act, 1944 as the Tribunal is not having jurisdiction in deciding appeal against order of Commissioner (Appeals) dealing wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal records. The appellants filed application for rebate on 02/02/2011. The period of payment of service tax is 2005-2006 to 2009-2010. We note that provision of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 dealing with refund/rebate have been made applicable to service tax by virtue of Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. Any application for refund of tax must be filed before the expiry of one year from relevant date. The limitation as prescribed by the law cannot be extended by any authority as no such relaxation or discretion is provided in the law. The law of limitation is based on public policy. It aims at certainity and advances the cause of doctrine of finality. We agree with the Original Authority in his analysis of limitation by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 562 (Bom.) held that even a writ-petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be decided by overriding a law or legal regime. There is no warrant or justification for holding that a stale or belated claim can be granted in a Constitutional remedy by ignoring a statutory prescription. Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in M.C.I. Leasing (P) Ltd. vs. CCE, Mysore reported in 2014 (33) S.T.R. 497 (Kar.) held that when the Act provides a complete mechanism for correcting any errors whether on fact or on law the burden is to work out remedy with four corners of law. 8. The appellants relied on certain case laws in support of their case. We have examined the same. In Geojit BNP Paribas Financial Services Ltd. vs. CCE reported in 2015 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court relied on the provisions of Article 226 of Constitution and general principles of law and equity and held that State cannot unjustly enrich itself. 11. In Sales Tax Officer, Banaras and others vs. Kanhaiya Lal Makund Lal Saraf (AIR 1959 SC 135) the Hon'ble Supreme Court was examining the applicability of Section 72 of Indian Contract Act to the said case. The Apex court was examining various legal principles relating to estoppels, equity etc. to decide on the applicability of the said provision. In Shri Vallabh Glass Works Ltd. and another vs. Union of India and others (1984) 3 SCC 362, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution for refund of excess pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
