2002 (10) TMI 1

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of total sanctioned refund of Rs. 19, 816/-, the amount sanctioned as refund in respect of service tax paid on or before 6-1-98 repeat 6-1-98 either paid or on tickets cancelled is clearly barred by limitation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Doaba Co. Sugar Mills, 1988 (37) E.L.T. 478 (S.C.) held as under : 'But in making claim for refund before the departmental authority, an assessee is bound within four corners of statute and the period of limitation prescribed in the Central Excise Act and the Rules framed thereunder must be adhered to. The Authorities functioning under the Act are bound by the provisions of the Act' In view of the above findings, I pass the following orders : ORDER In....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed and attracted unjust enrichment. The Deputy Commissioner allowed the refund claim holding that the relevant date for refund in the instant case under Section 11B is 30th June, 1998 and that there was no question of unjust enrichment. This order of Deputy Commissioner was reviewed by the Commissioner. Appeal was filed and Commissioner (Appeals) passed the order as indicated above. 3. Arguing the case for the appellant Shri Sudhir Malhotra, learned Counsel submits that the appellant filed refund claim on 6-7-98 pursuant to finalisation of assessment by the Superintendent under its order dated 30th June 1998. He submitted that the claim of the appellant was not hit by limitation. He submits that this Tribunal in the case of Omega A....