TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (5) TMI 167
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... wheat during the months of October, 2012 to December, 2012 in terms of Notification No. 41/2012- ST dated 29.6.2012. Service tax is governed by Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994, as amended. Section 94A of this Act, empowers the Central Government to, when goods or services are exported, grant rebate of service tax paid on taxable services which were used as input services. In exercise of these powers, the Central Government issued Notification No. 41/2012-ST granting rebate by way of refund of service tax paid on specified services and also laying down the manner claiming the rebate. Para 3(g) of this notification requires the claim to be filed within one year from the date of export. It further clarifies that the date of export shall be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be altered. The order of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Sony India Pvt. Ltd., (supra) is not relevant to this case as it pertained to the refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) on imported goods. The case of Pacific Leathers (supra) pertained to the relevant date for export under the earlier notification of 41/2007 when the assessee could not claim credit unless the duty was first credited by the Service Provider. The situation has since changed and the service recipient can claim credit of the service tax paid without waiting for the duty to be credited. As clearly indicated under Notification No. 41/2012-ST, the claim for rebate of service tax as to be filed within one year from the date of the LEO. Learned Departmental Representative ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reckoned for calculating one year and not the date of Let Export Order as laid down in the Notification. On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative argued that once a time limit has been laid down in the statute it cannot be modified. 8. I find that the key issue to be decided by me is whether the limitation of time imposed by the notification for claiming the refund of Service Tax on inputs which went into export of goods can be altered by reckoning the date on which the appellant received the invoices instead of the date of Let Export Order as laid down in the notification. Firstly, the Notification is a subordinate legislation made by the Government in exercise of the powers delegated by the Parliament. This power is given t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....along with the issue relating to unjust enrichment. Yet the question is whether it is permissible for the High Court to direct the authorities under the Act to act contrary to the aforesaid statutory provision. We do not think it is, even while acting under Article 226 of the Constitution. The power conferred by Article 226/227 is designed to effectuate the law, to enforce the Rule of law and to ensure that the several authorities and organs of the State act in accordance with law. It cannot be invoked for directing the authorities to act contrary to law. In particular, the Customs authorities, who are the creatures of the Customs Act, cannot be directed to ignore or act contrary to Section 27, whether before or after amendment. May be the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wn. Secondly, we find that the Apex Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, (1997) 5 SCC 536 had the occasion to deal with the question of delayed claim of refund of Customs and Central Excise. Per majority view, it was held that where refund claim is on the ground of the provisions of the Central Excise and Customs Act whereunder duty is levied is held to be unconstitutional, only in such cases suit or writ petition would be maintainable. Other than such cases, all refund claims must be filed and adjudicated under the Central Excise and Customs Act, as the case may be. Combined with the said decision, if we also take into account the observations of the Apex Court in the case of Kirloskar Pneumatic Company (supra),....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or refund of any duty was enlarged from 'six months' to 'one year'. Although the amendment came into force with effect from 12th May, 2000, the question is whether that amendment will cover the past transactions so as to apply the extended period of limitation to the goods exported prior to 12th May 2000?" In the case of Collector of Central Excise Vs. Doaba Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd., [1988 (37) ELT 478 (SC)] Hon'ble Supreme Court held "This Court observed that the Customs Authorities, acting under the Act, were justified in disallowing the claim for refund as they were bound by the period of limitation provided therefore in the relevant provisions of the Customs Act, 1962". In the case of Everest Flavours Ltd., Vs. The Union Of I....