2015 (2) TMI 144

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al. Brief facts explained by him are that that the appellant entered into works contract with M/s. Pipavav Energy Pvt. Limited ('PEPL') and received mobilization advance of Rs. 4,83,02,864/- in July - August, 2010 upon execution of bank guarantee. They paid service tax at the rate 4.12% on 23.8.2010, 06.9.2010 and 06.10.2010 totally amounting to Rs. 19,11,331/-, on the said mobilization advance, under Works Contract Composition Scheme. The said work contract was terminated by M/s. PEPL on 24.11.2011 and mobilization advance was recovered by M/s. PEPL by encashing the bank guarantee on 16.5.2012, for the service not provided. The appellant filed application for refund of service tax amounting to Rs. 19,11,331/- on 25.10.2012 paid by them on ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... as a deposit to which time bar of Section 11B is not applicable:-             (i) CCE, Kolahpur vs. Pratibha Constructions Engineers and Contractors (India) Pvt. Limited - [STO-2010[CESTAT-723]              (ii) K.V.R Constructions vs. CCE (Appeals), Bangalore -[STO-2010-KAR-911].              (iii) Natraj and Venkat Associates vs. Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai -II [STO-2009-Mad-1809]              (iv) UOI vs. ITC Limited - [CEO-1993-SC-2]       &n....