2017 (10) TMI 849

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sent case are that M/s. Cannanore Handloom Exports (respondent) are engaged in the manufacture and export of fabrics and also having service tax registration. The respondent is availing the services of overseas agents for procuring orders and for marketing their products abroad, which is taxable under the category of Business Auxiliary Service. In respect of the services rendered by their overseas agent, the liability for paying service tax is on the recipient of the service in India as per Rule 2(l)(d)(iv) of Service Tax Rules, 1994 read with explanation to Section 65(105). The respondent-assessee filed a refund application on 14/08/2012 for refund of service tax under Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 for Rs. 4,11,364/-. The respondent/....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ntertained unless the refund was as a consequence of declaration of a provision as unconstitutional. He further submitted that the judgment of the Hon'ble P&H High Court was challenged in the Supreme Court by way of a SLP but the same was dismissed and the judgment of the High Court was upheld. He further submitted that the Division Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Prabhakar C. Suvarna Vs. CCE&ST, Mangalore [2015-TIOL-2576-CESTAT-BANG], decided on 22/09/2015, has held that the refund of service tax paid under mistake, the claim has to be filed within prescribed period of one year and the limitation for claiming the refund cannot be extended in any circumstances including when the payments are made by error of law or under mistake. The ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the law is to be sanctioned or not, without raising the issue of limitation. The contention of the learned advocate is that as payment of service tax was a mistake, the period of limitation would not apply in such cases. On the other hand, the Revenue's contention is that the Tribunal, being a creature of statute has to work within the provisions of law and cannot extend the period of limitation as per the provisions under the law. Further the learned AR relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Asst. Collector Vs. Anam Electrical Manufacturing (supra) wherein it was held that statutory time limit is applicable to claim for refund of even illegal levies and time limit cannot be extended by any authority. On the other....