TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (3) TMI 876
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing on behalf of the appellant submits that the service tax was not payable as per Notification No. 14/2014-ST, therefore, whatever tax was paid that was paid without authority of law. Hence, the same was not payment of service tax but it is a deposit, hence time limit of one year should not apply. He placed reliance on the following judgments: * Monnet International Ltd-2017 (3) GSTL 380 (Tri.-Del) * Flemingo Duty Free Shop Pvt. Ltd.-2018 (8) GSTL 181 (Tri.-Mumbai) 3. Shri. S.K. Shukla, Ld. Superintendent (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the finding of the impugned order. He submits that even though the service tax was exempted vide Notification No. 14/2014-ST but the appellant had paid the same under the head of ser....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... customs duty including the duty on the actual receipt quantity. Therefore, the entire amount paid by the appellant is nothing but 6 Appeal No. C/10488/2017 Excise Act, 1944. In the case of Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh vs. Doaba Co-operative Sugar Mills - 1988 (37) E.L.T. 478 (S.C.), the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:- "6. It appears that where the duty has been levied without the authority of law or without reference to any statutory authority or the specific provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder have no application, the decision will be guided by the general law and the date of limitation would be the starting point when the mistake or the error comes to light. But in making claims for refund before th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s accordingly not entertained and dismissed. There is no order as to costs." From the above judgment, it is clear that even if there is refund of duty which was recovered without authority of law, the refund made before the departmental authority, limitation provided under Customs/Central Excise Act shall be applicable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that authorities functioning under an Act is bound by its provisions and any refund proceedings beyond the limitation provided under the Customs/ Central Excise Act, the same can be initiated in the Civil Court. Accordingly, the time limit under the Customs Act is applicable. We are also of the view that the Tribunal being creature of the statue and under 7 Appeal No. C/10488/2017 Cus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vailable. The decisions where assessee has invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Courts and the Courts have applied the period of limitation of three years, the same is inapplicable to cases where the refund 8 Appeal No. C/10488/2017 application has been moved before the Revenue authority. The decision in the case Escorts Limited vs. UOI - 1998 (97)ELT 211 (SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that application for refund is presented before the Customs authority under Section 27 of Customs Act, 1962, the said authority must necessarily operate within the four corners of the said Act and cannot have recourse to Section 72 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and the delayed application rightly rejected as time barred. The Hon'bl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....go beyond the provisions made under the Act and limitations provided under Section 27/Section 11B. 6. As regards the alternative submissions made by ld. Counsel that refund claim was filed within time limit from the date of receipt of Tribunal order, we find that the issue on merits was already decided in favour of the appellant by the Commissioner (Appeal) vide order dated 04.12.2013, thereafter, the appellant became eligible for refund. Even though the department had filed appeal against the Commissioner (Appeal) order before the Tribunal but since no stay was granted, the departmental authority was bound to sanction the refund claim in terms of CBEC Circular 572/9/2001-CX dated 22.02.2001. The relevant para of the Circular is reproduce....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es refundable as a consequence of any judgment, decree, order or direction of the appellate authority, Appellate Tribunal or any court, the limitation of one year shall be computed from the date of such judgment, decree, order or direction; As per clause (b) of sub Section (1B) of Section 27, where the duty became refundable as a consequence of any judgment, decree, order or direction of the appellate authority, the limitation of one year shall be computed from the date of such judgment, decree, order or direction. In the present case, the demand of duty on short imported goods stands set aside as per the order of Commissioner (Appeal) and as a consequence, the appellant become eligible for refund of the said amount. Therefore, in terms o....