Tribunal grants relief, sets aside order, finding entire tax deposit made under protest

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the order and granting relief to the appellant. It was found that the entire service tax deposit, including for the period of April-June 2008, was made under protest, dismissing Revenue's argument on limitation. The Tribunal emphasized that the protest covered the entire payment, nullifying the limitation contention and ruling in favor of the appellant.

---

---

Issues:
1. Whether the deposit of service tax was made under protestRs.
2. Whether the refund application filed in 2010 was barred by limitationRs.

Analysis:
1. The appellant started manufacturing country liquor for another entity, not paying service tax initially. Revenue claimed it was liable to service tax under 'business auxiliary services.' Appellant paid service tax for April-June 2008 under protest and later sought a refund based on High Court decisions deeming it a manufacturing activity not subject to service tax. The original authority allowed the refund, but Revenue contended the protest only started from October 2008, making the 2010 refund application time-barred.

2. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld Revenue's argument, denying the refund as the protest was deemed to start from October 2008. The central issue was whether the entire service tax deposit, including for April-June 2008, was made under protest. The letter from the appellant to the jurisdictional Superintendent indicated disagreement with Revenue's stance and stated future payments would be made under protest. The Tribunal concluded that the entire deposit, including for the past period, was made under protest, as evident from the language used in the letter.

3. The Tribunal found that the appellant's intention to pay under protest encompassed the entire deposit, dismissing the Revenue's argument on limitation. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the order and granting relief to the appellant. The Tribunal emphasized that the protest covered the entire payment, nullifying the limitation contention and disposing of the stay petition and appeal in favor of the appellant.

---