9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 619X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... date of assent to the Finance Bill for filing the refund claim. Accordingly, the refund claim should have been filed on or before 14.11.2016. However, the appellant has filed the refund claim only on 23.01.2017, which is beyond the time period of six months prescribed under Section 102(3) of the Finance Act, 2016. Hence, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly upheld the rejection of refund claim by the original adjudicating authority. The Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of M/S MDP INFRA (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER, CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE CGST [ 2019 (2) TMI 208 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] has held that The exemption was revived by notification dated 1-3-2016. But since it was prospective in effect, the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assent to the Finance Bill by the Hon ble President. Accordingly, the refund claim filed by the appellant was rejected on the ground of limitation. 3. In their appeal, the appellant submits that the time period prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act is applicable to them and hence, the refund claim filed by them on 23.01.2017 is not barred by limitation. 4. I find that the refund claim in this case has accrued on account of the provisions of Section 102 of the Finance Act, 2016. The Finance Act has provided a specific time-limit of six months from the date of assent to the Finance Bill for filing the refund claim. Accordingly, the refund claim should have been filed on or before 14.11.2016. However, the appellant has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Central Excise Authorities to legislate or to travel beyond the statutory limitations provided by the legislature. Similarly, neither the Tribunal has such powers to go beyond the provisions of the Act. The issue is well settled. Reference can be made to Hon ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Porcelain Electrical Mfg. Co. v. CCE, New Delhi - 1998 (98) E.L.T. 583 (S.C.), wherein it was observed that the refund claim filed before departmental authorities are to be governed by the time limit provided under the statute and the general law of limitation invoked by various High Courts under their extraordinary jurisdiction is inapplicable to the cases where the refund obligations has been moved before the Revenue authorities. 14. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cts of present also does not arise for consideration. The appellant was under legal obligation to deposit the service tax in respect of the service rendered qua non-exempted service. The contentions that it was beyond the control of the appellant to deposit the service tax on exempted service is misconceived. Evidently, the Notification No. 12/2012 25/2012 ceased to exist w.e.f. 1-4-2015. The exemption was revived by notification dated 1-3-2016. But since it was prospective in effect, the appellant was not entitled for any exemption, which the appellant was aware of and with open mind and eyes deposited the service tax due with interest. It was only by virtue of subsequent legislation the notification was made effective from retrospective ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
