2018 (8) TMI 29

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....plicable to the Finance Act, 1994. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant herein is engaged in manufacture of chemical fertilisers, falling under Chapter Heading No. 3103 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant discharges Service Tax liability on GTA service under reverse charge mechanism, for inward and outward transportation of goods. The period of dispute in this case is from April, 2014 to January, 2015. The Central Government vide Notification No. 3/2013-ST dated 01.04.2013 and Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 has granted exemption from payment of Service Tax on transportation of chemical fertilisers by a goods transport agency. In terms of the said notifications, the appellant was not liable to ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ct, shall not be applicable for consideration of the limitation period of one year for filing the refund applications. Accordingly, it is contented that the limitation provided under Section 17 of the Limitation Act, 1963 will be applicable, where under, the period of limitation has been prescribed as 3 years from the relevant date for claiming the refund benefit. To support the stand that the provision of Section 11B of the Act cannot be applicable in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Consultant has relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Natraj and Venkat Associates Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai-II - 2010 (17) STR 3 (Mad.) and the decision of this Tribunal, in the case of Commis....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of the statute. Since, Section 11B of the Act clearly mandates that the refund applications have to be filed within one year from the relevant date, which have admittedly not been filed by the appellant within such prescribed period, I am of the view that the refund sanctioning authority, being a creature under the statute, has rightly rejected the refund applications as per the statutory provisions. The law with regard to strict adherence to the time limit for consideration of the refund application is no more open for any debate, in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Vs. Union of India - 1997 (89) ELT 247 (SC), Miles India Ltd. (supra) and Anam Electrical Manufacturing Company (supra). On ....