TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (3) TMI 306
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gh the impugned orders. 2. As per the facts on record, the appellant filed a refund claim of Rs. 23,36,577/- on the ground that project for setting up of sewage treatment plant under contract for Haryana Development Authority was exempted from Service Tax under Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20/06/2012 but on account of oversight, they kept on paying Service Tax. The said Service Tax was paid by them partly through Cenvat Credit and partly in cash, during the period 05/06/2013 and 06/07/2013. The refund claim was filed by them, vide the application dated 16/01/2015. 3. Revenue entertained a view that the said refund claim stands filed by them after the prescribed period of one year, was hit by limitation and as such was not to be sanct....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (37) ELT 478 (SC), involving a similar issue of refund claim of duty, wherein it has been held that ".....in making claims for refund before the departmental authority, an assessed is bound within four comers of the Statute and the period of limitation prescribed in the Central Excise Act and the Rules framed there under must be adhered to. The authorities functioning under the Act are bound by the provisions of the Act. If the proceedings are taken under the Act by the department, the provisions of limitation prescribed in the Act will prevail." Further, a similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in respect of the period of limitation prescribed under Section 27 of the Customs Act in the case of Miles India Ltd. Vs. Asst. Col....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f refund is for tax/duty paid but not payable - There being no other provision of refund, time limit prescribed in Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 has to be mandatorily followed - Tribunal functioning under Central Excise Act/Customs Act, cannot go beyond the statue and relax time limitation prescribed as per law - refund claim hit by limitation and correctly rejected by adjudicating authorities - Impugned order upheld - Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 as applicable to Service Tax vide Section 83 of Finance Act, 1994." The present case is squarely covered by the above judgments. 6. As is clear from the above relevant paragraphs of the Appellate Authorities, we note that the law on the issue is well settled. Each and every r....