https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374581 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. en-us Mon, 14 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 07 Dec 2019 11:52:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374581 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. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 14 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374581