JUDGMENT : M.R. Shah, J. 1. By way of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ, direction and order to quash and set aside the impugned Order-in-Original dated 27-10-2016, by which, the learned Assistant Commissioner, Service Tax Division, Gandhidham, Kutch has rejected the claim of the refund of Service Tax filed by the petitioner. The petitioner has also further prayed for appropriate writ, direction and order inter alia contending delay in filing the Refund Application dated 11-8-2016 before the Assistant Commissioner, Service Tax Division, Gandhidham Kutch and further directing the Assistant Commissioner, Service Tax Division, Gandhidham Kutch to consider the claim of the refund of Service Tax filed by the petitioner on its merits without going into question of limitation. That the petitioner filed refund claim of Service Tax of Rs. 38,17,811/- being Service Tax paid during FY 2013-14. That the said refund claim was submitted on 19-8-2016 i.e. period of limitation provided under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. That by impugned order dated 27-10-2016, the Assistant Commissioner has rejected the said refund claim on the ground that the same is hit by limitation of time provided under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act r/w Section 83 of Chapter V of Finance Act, 1994. 1.1 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned Order-in-Original passed by Assistant Commissioner, the petitioner has preferred present Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the aforesaid relief. 2. Shri Jay Kansara, learned advocate for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the petitioner paid service tax under mistaken plea that they are liable to pay service tax. It is submitted that however subsequently the petitioner claimed all the service tax upon the service recipient from the Kandla Port Trust, the Kandla Port Trust informed the petitioner that for the subject work i.e. up-gradation of Barge Handling Facilities the service tax is not applicable. It is submitted that therefore, when petitioner paid service tax mistakenly the Assistant Commissioner ought to have condoned the delay and ought not to have rejected the refund claim on the technical ground of limitation. It is submitted that therefore, when petitioner paid service tax mistakenly the Assistant Commissioner ought to have condoned the delay and ought not to have rejected the refund claim on the technical ground of limitation. Making above submissions and relying upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Texcellence Overseas v. Union of India reported in 2013 (293) E.L.T. 496 as well as decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Natraj and Venkat Associates represented by its Partner A. Venkat v. Assistant Commissioner, Service Tax decided on 20-10-2009 in WP No. 15357 of 2009, 2010 (249) E.L.T. 337 (Mad.) : 2010 (17) S.T.R. 3 (Mad.), it is requested to allow the present appeal and grant the relief as prayed for. 3. Heard Shri Jay Kansara, learned advocate for the petitioner. At the outset, it is required to be noted and it is not in dispute that the petitioner claim refund of service tax paid during the financial year 2013-14, more particularly, for the period between the 18-6-2013 to 31-3-2014. It is also not in dispute that the refund application was made on 19-8-2016 i.e. after a period of almost two years and six months. As per Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 r/w. Section 83 of Chapter V of Finance Act, 1994, the refund application is required to be made within a period of one year from the relevant date described under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. The adjudicating authority has no jurisdiction to condone the delay and/or grant refund if the refund application is not made within the period of one year. No power of condonation of delay are vested with adjudicating authority. Under the circumstances, as such it cannot be said that adjudicating authority has committed any error in rejecting the refund claim. 4. It is required to be noted that even as per the petitioner, the petitioner came to know on 24-6-2014 that for the works "Upgradation of Barge Handling Facilities" the service tax is not applicable. Despite the above, the refund claim has been made on 19-8-2016. In the petition, delay of approximately more than 2 years has not been explained at all. Despite the above, the refund claim has been made on 19-8-2016. In the petition, delay of approximately more than 2 years has not been explained at all. If according to the petitioner, the petitioner came to know that for the works "Upgradation of Barge Handling Facilities", no service tax is applicable and that earlier they paid the tax mistakenly, in that case, immediately on receipt of the communication dated 24-6-2014 and within some reasonable time, the petitioner ought to have submitted the application for refund. Even after communication dated 24-6-2014, the refund application has been made after two years and two months. The delay for the interregnum period has not been explained at all. 5. Now, so far as reliefs claimed by the petitioner directing the adjudicating authority to condone the delay in filing the refund application dated 11-8-2016 is concerned, no relief can be granted and/or no writ can be issued contrary to the statute. Section 11B of the Act provides the period of limitation. Therefore, any relief directing the adjudicating authority either to condone the delay in filing the refund application and/or directing the Assistant Commissioner to consider the claim of the refund of service tax filed by the petitioner on merits without going into question of limitation would tantamount to nullify the statutory provisions contained in Section 11B of the Act. Under the circumstances, no such reliefs which prayed for the petition can be granted. 6. Now, so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Texcellence Overseas (supra) is concerned, on facts the said decision shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand. As observed herein above, in the present case delay of more than two years and two months has not been explained at all. 6.1 Now, so far as the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Natraj and Venkat Associates (supra) is concerned, in the case before the Madras High Court, the controversy was with respect to the relevant date for commencement of the period of limitation, for the purpose of Section 11B. Even otherwise, in the case before the Madras High Court, the refund claim was made after 14 months after payment of tax. Even otherwise, in the case before the Madras High Court, the refund claim was made after 14 months after payment of tax. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Madras High Court in exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has directed to consider the claim for refund on merits. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present petition fail and same deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.