2014 (3) TMI 796

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Appellant claimed exemption from duty on the ground that MTR is only a matching connector or plug point between telephone and telephone line, therefore no duty is payable as it is an accessory and not an essential component of telephone. Department insisted payment of duty which came to be challenged by the appellant. The duty payable for the period between 01.04.1999 and 31.03.2000 was paid 'under protest' towards the supply of MTR. The appellate authority dismissed the claim of the appellant which was challenged before the Tribunal and the Tribunal allowed the appeal by order  No.1287/2009 dated 23.10.2009 with regard to the adjudication whether duty is payable or not on the sale of MTR. 2. Subsequently appellant claimed....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... for refund is filed. 4. KVR Constructions(supra) was a case where refund was in respect of the amounts paid under a mistaken impression that they were liable to pay tax and it was collected by the Department without authority of law. The said amount was considered as a deposit with the Government and does not represent any service tax. Therefore, High Court of Karnataka opined that Section 11B is not applicable to the refund thereof. 5. So far as the case of Electro Steel Castings Ltd. (supra), it was a case similar to the case on hand. Payment of duty was made during the pendency of an appeal against the very levy of duty for the earlier period. However, it was under protest. While considering the controversy by referring to 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

....with reference to relevant date would not arise in the present case. Apparently this second proviso came to be introduced with effect from 20.09.1991 and after the said date, the benefit of excluding such applications from the period of limitation whenever duty was paid under protest is in the statute. 8. Dena Snuff (P) Ltd.(supra) was a case pertaining to payment of duty and interest though made under protest but it was on 20.05.1990 much prior to the introduction of second proviso to Section 11B. In the absence of second proviso to Section 11B, the stand of the Department that any application for refund has to be made within one year from the relevant date may be justifiable. Once second proviso appears in the Statute the very purpose ....