2013 (1) TMI 575

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....appellant was not paying any service tax. Revenue entertained a view that such manufacture on behalf of other would amount to service provided under the category of 'business auxiliary services' and is liable to service tax. The appellant vide their letter dated 17-10-2008 addressed to their jurisdictional Superintendent paid the service tax of Rs. 77,003/- for the period April, 2008 to June, 2008 and also deposed that in future, they will pay the service tax under protest till the matter attains finality. Subsequently there were decisions of various High Courts laying down that such activity is a manufacturing activity and will not attract service tax, appellant claimed refund of service tax paid by them. Such application was filed on 13-2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....test. This conclusion is further strengthened from para-5 of the above letter which uses the expression 'paid under protest'. Admittedly the word 'paid' has to refer to service tax which is deposited by the appellant and the only deposit is for the period April, 2008 to June, 2008. As such it can be very clearly concluded that it was the entire deposit which was under protest and the said letter cannot be segregated into two different parts, i.e., (i) referring to the deposits made and (ii) other, to the deposits which were yet to be made. It has to be treated as if the entire payments were under protest in which case the issue of limitation would not come into play. 6. In view of the foregoing discussion, I find no reasons to keep ....