9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 306X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... usly or not, is required to be governed by the provisions of the Act. In fact, every refund claim arises on account of the fact that the same was not required to be paid. As such, if the refunds are to be allowed on the ground that they were not required to be paid, without adhering to the limitation provisions, then each and every refund claim would become payable and the limitation provisions, as enacted in terms of the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 would become redundant and infructuous. Admittedly, in the present case the refund claims stands filed after a period of one year from the relevant date, in which case the same has been rightly rejected by the Lower Authorities as barred by limitation - Appeal di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of adjudication, the appellant did not contest the date of payment of Service Tax or the date of filing of refund claim. Their only contention was that in as much as, the said payment was unauthorized and was not required to be paid, the same should be refunded to them. The said plea of the appellant was not accepted by the Original Adjudicating Authority, who vide his impugned order rejected the refund claim. On appeal against the said order, Commissioner (Appeals) also upheld the same and hence the present appeal. 5. The only short issue required to be decided in the present appeal is, as to whether the limitation of one year would be applicable or not, as applicable in terms of provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, 2014 (33) STR 497 (Kar.) observed/held that Amount of tax not having been paid under protest, any payment of which refund sought, same had to be done within one year of the payment Claim for refund not having been made within the period prescribed under the Act, order of Tribunal held to be in accordance with law Sections 11B and 35G of Central Excise Act, 1944 Section 83 of Finance Act, 1944. Thus, as per the above judgments of the Hon ble Supreme Court and the Hon ble High Court, it has been clearly laid down that with regard to disposal of refund claim of duty/tax, the departmental authorities cannot go beyond the statutory provisions and the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 11B of the Central ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , every refund claim arises on account of the fact that the same was not required to be paid. As such, if the refunds are to be allowed on the ground that they were not required to be paid, without adhering to the limitation provisions, then each and every refund claim would become payable and the limitation provisions, as enacted in terms of the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 would become redundant and infructuous. At this stage, we may refer to the Hon ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Porcelain Electric Mfg. Co. Versus Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi reported as 1998 (98) ELT 583 (S.C.), wherein it was observed that the Authorities working under the Act are bound by the provisions of the Act a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
