TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 721
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5/- filed by the appellant. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in providing taxable service under the category of "Club or Association Service" defined under Section 65(25a) of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant is registered with the service tax department for providing of such taxable service. During the disputed period 2005-06 to 2014-15, the appellant had deposited the service tax amount in respect of such taxable service on different dates (1st and last of days of such deposits being 22.10.2009 and 30.04.2014 respectively). The appellant had filed the refund application before the Jurisdictional Service Tax authorities on 19.09.2016 on the ground that the service provided by the club to its members cannot b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 does not apply and in such cases, the general rule of limitation prescribed under the Limitation Act, 1963 alone will be applicable. Thus, he submitted that the refund claim having been filed within the limitation period prescribed under the Limitation Act, 1963, the benefit cannot be denied on the ground of limitation. To support such stand, the learned Advocate has relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India - 1997 (89) ELT 247 (SC) and the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Parijat Construction v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nashik - 2018 (359) ELT 113 (Bom.). 4. On the other hand, the learned D.R. a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-CHD-LB to support the case of Revenue for rejection of refund application. 5. Heard both sides and perused the records, including the written submissions filed by both sides. 6. The facts are not under dispute that the appellant had filed refund applications on 19.08.2016, claiming refund of service tax paid by it on different occasions, ranging from 22.09.2009 to 30.04.2014; that the said applications were filed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 made applicable to the service tax matters vide Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994; and that the refund sanctioning authority had adjudicated the refund applications under the said statutory provisions. Section 11B ibid deals with the situation of claim of refund of duty (servic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Manufacturing (supra) have also held that the period prescribed by the Central Excise Act / Customs Act for filing of refund application in the case of "illegal levy" cannot be extended by any authority or Court. With regard to the issue, whether the jurisdictional authorities can entertain the refund application filed beyond the statutory prescribed time limit, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Miles India Ltd. (supra) have endorsed the views expressed by the Tribunal that the Customs authorities acting under the Act were justified in disallowing the claim of refund, as they were bound by the period of limitation provided under Section 27(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 [pari materia with Section 11B (supra)]. 6.1 In view of the above....