2014 (12) TMI 828

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt. Shri Rakesh Goyal, Commissioner (AR), for the Respondent. ORDER The appellants are in appeals against the impugned orders wherein their refund claims were rejected by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that the refund claim is hit by the limitation prescribed in Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are ul....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CCE v. KVR Construction - 2012 (26) S.T.R. 195 (Kar.). 4. On the other hand, the learned A.R. reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 5. Heard both sides and considered the submissions. 6. It is an admitted fact that the appellants were not required to pay service tax but the appellants ....