Special refund limitation controls service tax refund claims; general refund rules cannot override the express statutory filing period.

Refund of service tax paid during the interregnum on specified government construction services was held governed by the special refund mechanism introduced by Section 102 of the Finance Act, 2016, which prescribed a six-month filing period from presidential assent. Because the refund application was filed after that statutory period, the claim was time-barred. The general refund machinery under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could not displace the express limitation in the special provision. The argument that the tax had been paid under mistake was also rejected on the facts, as the liability was consciously discharged before the retrospective exemption was enacted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim for service tax paid during the interregnum period was barred by limitation under the special refund provision inserted by the Finance Act, 2016, and whether the amount paid could be treated as tax paid under mistake so as to avoid the statutory time limit.

Analysis: The retrospective exemption for specified government construction services was restored by Section 102 of the Finance Act, 2016, which itself created a complete refund mechanism and prescribed a period of six months from the date of presidential assent for filing refund claims. The refund application was filed beyond that period. The Court held that the special provision governed the claim and that the general refund machinery under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could not override the express limitation laid down by the legislature. The contention that the payment was made under mistake was rejected on the facts, as the services were not exempt during the relevant period and the liability was consciously discharged before the retrospective relief was enacted.

Conclusion: The refund claim was time-barred and not maintainable; the challenge to the rejection failed.

---