9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 1259X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dgment. All that was considered was if service tax has been paid under a mistake, then the time limit provided under section 11B of the Central Excise Act would not be applicable.
Conclusion - The statutory time limits must be adhered to, and neither the Tribunal nor the revenue authorities have the power to extend or ignore such limits. The refund claim was rightly rejected as time-barred.
Appeal dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d or collected during the period commencing from the 1st day of April, 2015 and ending with the 29th day of February, 2016 (both days inclusive), in respect of taxable services provided to the Government, a local authority or a Governmental authority, by way of construction, erection, commissioning, installation, completion, fitting out, repair, maintenance, renovation or alteration of- (a) a civil structure or any other original works meant predominantly for use other than for commerce, industry or any other business or profession; (b) a structure meant predominantly for use as - (i) an educational establishment: (ii) a clinical establishment; or (iii) an art or cultural establishment; (c) a residential complex predominantly meant for self-use or for the use of their employees or other persons specified in Explanation 1 to clause (44) of section 65B of the said Act, under a contract entered into before the 1st day of March, 2015 and on which appropriate stamp duty, where applicable, had been paid before that date. (2) Refund shall be made of all such service tax which has been collected but which would not have been so collected had sub-section (1) been in force at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he application has to be moved within six months and not after the expiry of period of six months. The submission advanced by learned counsel is clearly contrary to provisions of sub-section (3) of section 102 of the Finance Act. 12. The aforesaid view that has been taken finds support from the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in MDP Infra (India). While examining a similar plea regarding the time limit provided under sub-section (3) of the section 102 of the Finance Act, the Madhya Pradesh High Court observed as follows: "10. That by order dated 15-6-2017 the refund claim was dismissed being time barred under Section 11B of 1944 Act. 11. Aggrieved, appellant preferred an appeal on the ground that the substantial benefit should not be denied as the appellant has made the payment of service tax on the contracts which were exempted during relevant period. As there was no legal authority to sustain the amount paid by the appellant, the department has no authority to withhold the same on the ground of limitation. It was stated that the provisions of Section 11B of 1944 Act would get attracted when there is a liability and excess duty/tax is deposited and later on the refu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rmined their refund claim as the same was clearly time barred." 13. On further appeal, the Tribunal vide impugned order affirmed the order rejecting refund claim. The Tribunal taking into consideration the stipulations contained under Section 102 of the Finance Bill, 2016 prescribed specific period of limitation of six months from the date of the assent of the President (which being 14-5-2016) for refund. And that the appellant applied for refund on 24-3-2017, i.e., with a delay of 131 days, dismissed the appeal observing :- "8. Having carefully heard the submissions of both the sides, I find that there is no dispute on the facts. The retrospective exemption having been granted by the legislative, there was a clause for refund of the tax paid during the intervening period subject to the condition that such refund claim are filed within the period of six months. Admittedly, the refund stands filed beyond the said period, thus, contravening the condition. There is no power with the 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d after six months. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant has, however, placed reliance upon a decision of a learned Member of the Tribunal in Aadhar Stumbh Township. The relevant portion of the decision is reproduced below: "19. Having considered the rival contentions, I find that there is sufficient evidence on record that appellant had dispatched the refund applications by speed post on 8.11.2016, which were returned by the Department by refusing to accept. Further, refusing of refund by the Department is evident 7 from the facts on record, as the Service Tax Division has been shifted from CGO Complex, New Delhi to Ambedkar Bhawan, Rohini, New Delhi. Thus, I hold that the appellant had dispatched the refund application well within the period of limitation, which was expiring on 14.11.2016. Such dispatch on 8.11.2016 is also proved by the fact that the appellant has soon thereafter receipt back of the mail with the remark "refused to accept", has again filed the application by hand on 5.12.2011. In this view of the matter, I hold that the refund application has been filed within the limitation as prescribed under Section 102(3) of the Finance Act. I further hold that in view o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
