Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : M/s MMTC Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Hyderabad)
Appeal Number : Appeal No. C/30219/2017
Date of Judgement/Order : 26/04/2018
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

M/s MMTC Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Hyderabad)

The key issue to be decided by CESTAT is whether the limitation of time imposed by the notification for claiming the refund of Service Tax on inputs which went into export of goods can be altered by reckoning the date on which the appellant received the invoices instead of the date of Let Export Order as laid down in the Firstly, the Notification is a subordinate legislation made by the Government in exercise of the powers delegated by the Parliament. This power is given to the Government and not to the officers or to this Tribunal. Hence, the provisions of this notification including the time limit and the date of reckoning the time limit cannot be modified by the officers or by this Tribunal. It has been laid down in a catena of judgements by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Courts that a statutory time limit has to be adhered to and the Courts cannot modify them. Of course, the Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Courts can and do examine the validity of the laws and subordinate legislations and pass judgments annulling or modifying them but the Tribunal, as a creation of the statute cannot do so. This has been explained clearly by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI Vs. Kirloskar Pneumatics Company [1996 (84) ELT 401 (SC)].

The judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Sony India Ltd., (supra) modifies the date of reckoning to calculate the time limit for claiming SAD refund under the relevant notification. The judgement does not empower the officers or the Tribunal to make such modification to other notifications (including the present Notification No. 41/2012-ST) also.

Consequently, no force in the arguments of the appellant that they should be granted refund of Service Tax paid on services used in the goods exported by them beyond one year from the date of LEO as specified in the Notification No. 41/2012-ST. The appeal is therefore, dismissed.

FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:-

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031