https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390062 The Tribunal held that the refund mechanism for service tax collected on one-time development charges must be read harmoniously with the general refund procedure under section 11B of the Central Excise Act, through section 83. It treated the six-month time-limit in section 104(3) as directory, not an absolute bar, because a beneficial refund provision should not be construed to defeat the substantive refund right. It further held that the limitation under section 11B had to be computed from 01.04.2017, and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority to verify limitation and grant refund if otherwise in time. en-us Fri, 20 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 23 Dec 2019 12:24:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390062 The Tribunal held that the refund mechanism for service tax collected on one-time development charges must be read harmoniously with the general refund procedure under section 11B of the Central Excise Act, through section 83. It treated the six-month time-limit in section 104(3) as directory, not an absolute bar, because a beneficial refund provision should not be construed to defeat the substantive refund right. It further held that the limitation under section 11B had to be computed from 01.04.2017, and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority to verify limitation and grant refund if otherwise in time. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 20 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390062