Page 228 - GSTL_2nd April 2020_Vol 35_Part 1

130 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 35
other provisions of Section 11B ibid be made applicable to assessee - Even
though assessee paid Service Tax on services, not leviable to Service Tax dur-
ing relevant time, assessee still needs to file refund claim within period pre-
scribed under Section 11B ibid since statutory authority cannot ignore specific
enactments under which refund claim is filed - Refund claim filed beyond
statutory time limit of one year, therefore rejection of Appeal justified - No
infirmity in order of Commissioner (Appeals) - Section 11B of Central Excise
Act, 1944 as applicable to Service Tax vide Sections 83 of Finance Act, 1994 -
Every claim for refund of excise duty can be made only under and in accordance with
Section 11B in the forms provided by the Act. The only exception is where the provision
of the Act whereunder the duty has been levied, is found to be unconstitutional for viola-
tion of any of the constitutional limitations. [paras 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11]
Refund - Powers of Tribunal to grant refund beyond time-limit -
Amount paid as tax and refund claimed from jurisdictional tax authorities -
Necessarily such tax authorities bound by law governing collection as well as
refund of any tax - No legal mandate existing to direct tax authority to act be-
yond statutory powers binding on them - Section 11B of Central Excise Act,
1944 as applicable to Service Tax vide Sections 83 of Finance Act, 1994 - In my
view, the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the High Courts can pass such orders by exercis-
ing powers under the Constitution. But such powers are not vested in this Tribunal for
allowing refund beyond the statutory time-limit prescribed by the statute. The Tribunal
is creature of statute and cannot exercise such sweeping powers which are bestowed upon
the Constitutional Courts. Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1994. [para 5]
Appeal rejected
CASES CITED
Assistant Collector v. Anam Electrical Manufacturing Co.
— 1997 (90) E.L.T. 260 (S.C.) — Relied on .............................................................................. [Paras 4, 6]
Commissioner v. K.V.R. Construction — 2012 (26) S.T.R. 195 (Kar.) — Referred ............................ [Para 4]
Commissioner v. Manorath Builder Pvt. Ltd. — 2010 (18) S.T.R. 453 (Tribunal) — Relied on ..... [Para 8]
Dharamchand Paraschand Exports v. Commissioner — Final Order No. 85661/2019,
dated 3-4-2019 by CESTAT, Mumbai — Relied on .................................................................... [Para 9]
Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2016 (42) S.T.R. 377 (Tribunal)
— Referred ........................................................................................................................................ [Para 4]
Jumax Foam Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (Photocopy)
— 2003 (157) E.L.T. 252 (Del.) — Relied on ................................................................................. [Para 7]
Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India — 1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 (S.C.)
— Relied on ..................................................................................................................... [Paras 4, 5, 6, 7, 9]
Miles India Limited v. Assistant Collector — 1987 (30) E.L.T. 641 (S.C.) — Relied on ................... [Para 5]
Pallavapuram Tambaram MSW P. Ltd. v. Commissioner
— 2016 (42) S.T.R. 377 (Tribunal) — Referred ............................................................................. [Para 4]
Parijat Construction v. Commissioner — 2018 (359) E.L.T. 113 (Bom.)
= 2018 (9) G.S.T.L. 8 (Bom.) — Referred........................................................................................ [Para 4]
REPRESENTED BY : Shri V.V. Deo, Chartered Accountant, for the
Appellant.
Shri S.B. Mane, Asstt. Commissioner (AR), for the
Respondent.
[Order]. - This Appeal has been filed against the order dated 27-3-2018
passed by the Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (Appeals-III), Mumbai in
Order-in-Appeal No. NA/GST-A-III/MUM/561/17-18.

GST LAW TIMES  2nd April 2020  292