Statutory limitation controls service tax refund claims, and a mistake of law does not override the time bar.

Refund claims before the revenue authorities are governed strictly by the statutory limitation period under Section 11B read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994, and the general law of limitation does not apply. Where service tax is paid on activities later asserted to be exempt, a claim filed beyond one year from the relevant payment dates remains barred, even if the payment is said to have been made under a mistake of law. The legal effect is that the statutory time bar controls refund applications and is not displaced by the mistaken-payment argument.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim, filed beyond one year from the relevant dates of payment, was barred by limitation even though the tax was alleged to have been paid on exempt activities and under a mistake of law.

Analysis: The refund claim related to service tax paid during September 2012 to August 2014 on activities stated to be exempt under Notification No. 25/2012-ST. The claim was filed on 23/09/2016 and was rejected as time-barred under Section 11B of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. The limitation prescribed by the statute governs refund claims made before the departmental authorities, and the general law of limitation does not apply. A claim that tax was paid under a mistake of law does not displace the statutory bar of limitation for refund applications.

Conclusion: The refund claim was rightly held to be time-barred, and no interference with the rejection order was warranted.

Ratio Decidendi: Refund claims made before the revenue authorities are governed strictly by the statutory limitation period, and payment of tax under a mistake of law does not exclude or override that limitation.

---