2019 (4) TMI 443

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....issioner, Authorised Representative for the Respondent ORDER SUVENDU KUMAR PATI: Refund claim of the amount erroneously paid towards "renting of immovable property being residential premises for use as residence" for the period from April, 2012 to June, 2014 for an amount of Rs. 5,17,749/- that was rejected as being filed beyond the statutory period of one year i.e. on 07.01.2016 has brou....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in citing M/s Parijat Construction, M/s Giriraj Construction Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise judgment reported in 2017 (10) TMI 659, M/s Pallavapuram Tambaram MSW Pvt. Ltd. Judgment reported in 2018 (6) TMI1487, both of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and CESTAT decisions respectively, submitted that limitation prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is not applicable to the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 5. Heard from both sides and perused the case records as well as relied upon decisions. In view of Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994, Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and its ancillary provisions are applicable to service tax matters. The leading case of Mafatlal Industries reported in 1997 (89) ELT 247 (AC) governs the rule of refund as contemplated in Section 11B of the Central E....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....der Article 226 of the Constitution or of this Court under Article 32 - is concerned, it remains unaffected by the provisions of the Act. Even so, the Court would, while exercising the jurisdiction under the said articles, have due regard to the legislative intent manifested by the provisions of the Act. The writ petition would naturally be considered and disposed of in the light of and in accorda....