2009 (2) TMI 696

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t. ORDER The appellants M/s. Aswin Textiles Pvt. Ltd. paid service tax of Rs. 85,778/- due on Goods Transport Operators service availed by it during the period 16-11-1997 to 1-6-1998. The appellants paid this amount of tax on 1-2-2003. Vide judgment in the case of L.H. Sugar Factories Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut-II reported in 2006 (3) S.T.R. 230 (Tri. - Del.) = 2004 (165)....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nal authority on the ground of limitation. The appeal filed by the assessee was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order. He found that the amount claimed as refund had not been paid under protest and that the order of the original authority confirming liability equal to the tax already paid had not been challenged before the appropriate forum. He also held that the appellant....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y. Limitation, therefore, did not apply. Case law holding payment of amounts during the pendency of a dispute as under protest were also cited. 3. During hearing, the learned consultant for the appellants submits that the Show Cause Notice issued by the original authority to reject the claim for refund on the ground of limitation had indicated the amount as Rs. 47,368/-. Therefore, the entire c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e original authority and affirmed in the impugned order. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the appellants could not seek relief of a judgment rendered in the case of another person and found the claim devoid of merits. There is no dispute that the impugned claim was filed beyond the time limit prescribed in the statute. In the Show Cause Notice issued proposing to reject the claim indicated at ....