2010 (12) TMI 331

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Nyalkalkar, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order].  - The Revenue has filed this appeal against the impugned order allowing the refund claim of the amount paid by them as service tax. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents are registered with the department under Commercial and Industrial Building & Civil Structures services. They received advance to execute the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... me. 3. The learned DR submitted that the respondents has paid the amount in dispute as service tax through TR-6 challan and the refund of service tax is to be claimed within 1 year of the service tax paid as per Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. To support his contention he placed reliance on Brite Neon Signs v. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi reported in 2006 (2) S.T.R. 5....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ra Auctioneers reported in 2010 (19) S.T.R. 222 (Tri.-Mumbai) and Prachar Communications Ltd. v. Commissioner of C. Ex., Mumbai-IV, 2006 (2) S.T.R. 492 (Tri.-Mumbai). Finally, he relied on K.V.R. Constructions v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore reported in 2010 (17) S.T.R. 6 (Kar.). 5. Heard and considered 6. In the impugned case the facts are not in dispute that the responden....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g hoarding/neo signs by the assessee. The only dispute was of that as per the direction of Hon'ble Apex Court the hoarding/neo signs were to be removed and it is also not coming from the facts that whether the assessee has returned the amount of service tax to their client or not? In fact, in the case of KVR (supra) the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has held that as the petitioner is not held li....