2017 (11) TMI 37

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Section 11B ibid are not applicable to the facts of the present Notification No.30/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 read with Notification No.26/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012. During the period under dispute, service tax was payable on the taxable value, after allowing for the abatement of 75% of the amount charged by the service provider. However, the appellant deposited Service Tax on 100% of the value of transportation services received from goods transport agencies. The appellant noticed such excess payment of service tax and accordingly, filed the refund application on 15.07.2015, claiming refund of service tax of Rs. 6,42,901/- paid by it during the period July, 2012 to March, 2015. The matter was adjudicated vide order dated 21.01.2016, wherein r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s:- a) UOI Vs. Paharpur Cooling Cower Ltd.-1991 (56) ELT.- 127 (SC) b) Geojit BNP Paribas Financial Services Ltd. Vs. CCE - 2015 (039) STR -706 (Kerala) c) Swastic Sanitarywares Ltd. Vs. UOI - 2013 (296) ELT-321 (Guj) d) U Foam Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE - 1988 (36) ELT - 551 (AP) e) Hexacom (I) Ltd. Vs. CCE - 2003 (156) ELT - 357 (T-Delhi) f) CCE Vs. Indian Ispat Works Pvt. Ltd & Ors. - 2006(03) STR - 161(T-Delhi) g) CCE Vs. MA Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. - 2006 (002) STR - 350 (T-Kolkata) h) Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd. Vs. CCE - 2016 (45) STR - 454. i) Benzy Tours & Travels Pvt. Ltd. - 2016 (43) STR 625. j) Final order No.S.T.(A) (52170-52171/2017-CU (DB) dated 08.03.2017 in the case of Monnet International Ltd....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ad mentioned that the claim is towards refund of service tax and Education CESS/SHE-CESS. Thus, it is evident that the refund claim has been filed by the appellant under Section 11B ibid. The said statutory provision mandates the time limit of one year from the relevant date for filing the refund application. In the present case, as per clause (f) in explanation (B), contained in Section 11B ibid, the relevant date should be construed as the date of payment of duty. Since, no ambiguity arises in plain reading of the provisions of Section 11B ibid, different interpretations can not be placed by the authorities functioning under the statute and are bound to obey the dictates/ provisions contained therein. 7. In this context, the Hon'bl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....re bound by the period of limitation provided under Section 27 (1) of the Customs Act, 1962. 8. In view of the settled position of law and in view of the fact that the refund application was filed and decided under Section 11B ibid, the time limit prescribed therein should be strictly followed in entertaining the refund application. Since the adjudicating /appellate authorities are created under the statute, are duty bound to obey the provisions contained therein. Therefore, I am of the considered view that rejection of refund application by the authorities below is in conformity with the statutory provisions. 9. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above referred cases, there is no need for going throu....