9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 629X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... India by the Government. Any return of such amount should be governed by the legal provision which governs collection of such amount - In the present case, Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1994 made applicable to the provisions of services tax is correctly invocable to determine the limitation - refund not allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - Appeal No. ST/427/2010 - Final Order No. 41983 / 2017 - Dated:- 6-9-2017 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S. Member (Judicial) And Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Shri R. Raghavan, Advocate Shri M. Kannan, Advocate For the Appellant Shri B. Balamurugan, AC (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per B. Ravichandran The appeal is against order dt.26.03.2010 of Commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... their entitlement for refund. He relied on the following decisions of the Tribunal : (i) Hexacom (I) Ltd. Vs CCE Jaipur 2006 (3) STR 131 (Tri.-Del.) (ii) CCE Pune-III Vs Shankar Ramchandra Auctioneers 2010 (19) STR 222 (Tri.-Mumbai) (iii) Jubilant Enterprises P. Ltd. Vs CCE Mumbai-I 2014 (35) STR 430 (Tri.-Mumbai) 3. The Ld. A.R contested the appeal and submitted that the claim is hit by time bar. The department cannot act beyond the legal provisions of Section 11B made applicable to service tax. When the time limit was not adhered to, jurisdictional officer cannot consider the claim at all. In the present case, the claim was rejected by the original authority, both on merit as well as on limitation. Though the Commission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt of Consolidated Fund of India by the Government. Any return of such amount should be governed by the legal provision which governs collection of such amount. In the present case, Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1994 made applicable to the provisions of services tax is correctly invocable to determine the limitation. The decisions of the Tribunal relied upon by the appellant will not help his cause. We note that the Hon ble Bombay High Court in Andrew Telecom (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs CC CEX Goa - 2014 (34) STR 562 (Bom.) examined this issue elaborately. The Hon ble High Court held at para-19 as follows : 19. Before us, the undisputed position is that the amount was paid by the Appellant as Service Tax. That tax was not imposable or levi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the payment was only deposit and not Service Tax, cannot be sustained. Further, a tax, be it, direct or indirect, is intended for immediate expenditure for the common good of the state and it would be unjust to require its repayment after it has been in whole or in part expended, which would often be the case in most payment of such sort. Therefore, it is impracticable for the authorities to refund applications that are filed beyond time even it is paid under a mistake of law. Therefore, the authorities have rightly rejected the claim of the respondent and this aspect has not been taken note of by the learned single Judge. 7. On the basis of our discussions and analysis, we find that no refund can be considered by Revenue if the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
