2013 (1) TMI 684

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lment. Revenue is of the view that activities undertaken by them is liable to service tax. Therefore, on persuasion of the Revenue, the appellants paid service tax for the period 16.7.2001 to 31.3.2009. After the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE Vs. Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd reported in 2008 (10) STR 433 (SC) wherein the Apex Court held that activity of Hire Purchase Finance does not cover under the service tax levy. Therefore, the appellants challenged the levy of service tax on them before the Commissioner (Appeals). The lower Appellate Authority allowed the appeal of appellants and held the appellants are not liable to pay the service tax and directed the adjudicating authority to consider the refund claim of the app....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....not collected any service tax from their clients. Therefore, their refund claim be allowed. 5. Ld. DR strongly opposed the contention of the ld. Counsel and submitted that as Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 the appellants were required to file refund claim within one year from the date of tax paid. He further submitted that the appellants never protested their levy of service tax therefore the claim is time barred as the liability was accepted by the appellant. As they have paid service tax periodically, they are not entitled for refund claim beyond the period of one year as prescribed in Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944. To support this contention he relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the cas....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... that liability to pay service tax was challenged by the appellants before the Commissioner (Appeals) and who held that they are not liable to pay service tax only on 27.8.2010. The said order has been accepted by the department and not challenged. Therefore, in the circumstances of the case, relevant date is 27.8.2010 and the appellant has filed the refund claim within one year from the relevant date. The same view was taken by the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Preventive). Jamnagar Vs. Continental Petroleums Ltd reported in 2009 (234) ELT 333 (Tri.Ahmd) and CCE, Madurai Vs. Sundaram Industries Ltd reported in 2011 (263) ELT 615 (Tri.Chennai). Therefore, it is held that refund claim of Rs.5,64,818/- is within time. 8.....