9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 561X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the provisions of Section 11B, doctrine of unjust enrichment will not have any application, inasmuch as, the appellant had paid the service tax on GTA service under reverse charge mechanism. The refund claim filed by the appellant within one year from the relevant date is maintainable and eligible for refund - appeal allowed in part. - ST/51623/2017-SM - Final Order No. 58641/2017 - Dated:- 18-12-2017 - Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) Shri Gokul K. Sharma, Sr. Executive - for the appellant Shri G.R. Singh, D.R. - for the respondent ORDER Per S.K. Mohanty : Rejection of refund claim on the ground of limitation is the subject matter of present dispute. The appellant had filed refund application on 20.4.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n, inasmuch as, the appellant had paid the service tax on GTA service under reverse charge mechanism. Since, the payment has been made under reverse charge mechanism, there was no scope or occasion to pass on the incidence of service tax to the service provider or any other person. With regard to the time limit for filing the refund application, the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Collr. of Cus. Vs. Anam Electrical Manufacturing Co. 1997 (1) TMI 80 (SC) , Collector of CE, Chandigarh Vs. Doaba Co-Operative Sugar Mills 1988 (8) TMI 103 (SC) and Miles India Ltd. Vs. Assistant Collector of Customs - 1984 (4) TMI 63 (SC) held that once a refund application has been filed under Section 11B of the Act, time limit pres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ur corners of the statute and the period of limitation prescribed in the Central Excise Act and the Rules framed there-under must be adhered to. Further, the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Anam Electrical Manufacturing Company (supra) have also held that the period prescribed by the Central Excise Act/ Customs Act for filing a refund application in the case of illegal levy cannot be extended by any authority or Court. Yet, in the case of Miles India Ltd. (Supra), the Hon ble Supreme Court have endorsed the views expressed by the Tribunal that the Customs Authorities acting under the Act were justified in disallowing the claim of refund, as they were bound by the period of limitation provided under Section 27 (1) of the Customs Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Accordingly, the appeals filed by the appellant are dismissed. 4. The decision of the Tribunal n the case of M/s Monnet International Ltd., M/s Monnet Projects India Pvt Ltd. Vs. CCE, New Delhi 2017 (3) TMI 791-CESTAT-New Delhi relied on by the appellant is distinguishable inasmuch as the above judgments of the Hon ble Supreme Court have not been referred to or analyzed by the Tribunal, while deciding the issue of refund claim. Thus, such decision relied on by the appellant cannot be considered at this juncture for deciding the issue differently, 5. In view of above, the refund claim filed by the appellant within one year from the relevant date is maintainable and eligible for refund. However, the refund claim filed beyond one ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
