TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (2) TMI 619
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the provisions of Section 102 of the Finance Act. As per sub-section (3) of Section 102 of the Finance Act, a refund claim has to be filed within a period of six months from the date on which the Finance Bill receives the assent of the Hon'ble President i.e., on 14.05.2016. In the present case, the appellant has filed the refund claim on 23.01.2017 i.e., after a period of 254 days from the date of receipt of the assent to the Finance Bill by the Hon'ble President. Accordingly, the refund claim filed by the appellant was rejected on the ground of limitation. 3. In their appeal, the appellant submits that the time period prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act is applicable to them and hence, the refund claim filed by them on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... I find that there is no dispute on the facts. The retrospective exemption having been granted by the legislative, there was a clause for refund of the tax paid during the intervening period subject to the condition that such refund claim are filed within the period of six months. Admittedly, the refund stands filed beyond the said period, thus, contravening the condition. There is no power with the Central Excise Authorities to legislate or to travel beyond the statutory limitations provided by the legislature. Similarly, neither the Tribunal has such powers to go beyond the provisions of the Act. The issue is well settled. Reference can be made to Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Porcelain Electrical Mfg. Co. v. CCE, New Delh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0-9-2015 was deposited under misconception. Evidently, the works contract undertaken by the appellant during said period was not exempted. Therefore, the question that, the service tax and interest was paid under misconception does not arise, as would give rise for the proposed substantial question. 16. As regard to substantial question of law at 'B', the said question in given facts of present also does not arise for consideration. The appellant was under legal obligation to deposit the service tax in respect of the service rendered qua non-exempted service. The contentions that it was beyond the control of the appellant to deposit the service tax on exempted service is misconceived. Evidently, the Notification No. 12/2012 & 25/2012 ceas....