9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 522X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e - In this case, the refund application was filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed u/s 11B ibid - In absence of any specific power conferred under the statue empowering the authorities to condone the delay in late submission of refund application, the refund claim filed beyond the period of one year from the date of payment of service tax will be clearly barred by limitation of time - r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ervice tax of ₹ 2, 79,033/- for the months of March 2010. The refund application was rejected by the original authority on the ground of limitation. On appeal, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the adjudication order. 3. The ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that there was no statutory obligation on the appellant to deposit such excess amount into the Central Gove ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad deposited the service tax under the taxable category of service of Telecommunication services, the time limit prescribed in Section 11B ibid should be strictly applied for claiming refund of service tax. In the present case, since the refund application has been filed beyond the prescribed period of one year from the date of deposit of service tax, the same is clearly barred by limitation of ti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed beyond the period of one year from the date of payment of service tax will be clearly barred by limitation of time. Therefore, the authorities below have rightly rejected the refund application field by the appellant. 7. The amount in question deposited by the appellant cannot be considered as mere deposit, for the reason that said amount was deposited into the Central Government Account in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... circumstances of such case, the Hon ble High Court held that for claiming refund of mere deposit, provisions of Section 11B ibid will not have any application. Similarly the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Hexacom (I) Ltd. (supra) has not dealt with the issue of time bar and confined the findings only to the aspect of unjust enrichment. Hence the said decision is also distinguishable from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
