TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (6) TMI 1106
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....present case are that the appellant is a partnership firm engaged in the business of development and sale of immovable properties and they construct commercial buildings and sell each unit to various parties. And for the purpose of carrying out the construction work of the buildings the appellant used material and labour force. However, the appellants carried out such construction activities for themselves and for their own purposes and not for any one else and the transaction between the appellant and the buyer is purely a transaction of sale of shops inside the building and cannot be treated as contract for rendering of service of any nature whatsoever. In this background, a show-cause notice was issued to the appellant wherein it was pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unded to the appellant. He also submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has passed the impugned order without considering the documents submitted by the appellant before him to prove that there was no service involved in the transaction to which the refund claims pertain though the same was not submitted before the original authority. He also submitted that the refund claim of the appellant is not time barred since the entire amount was collected by the department without the authority of law. He submitted that out of the total claim of Rs. 5,52,998/-, an amount of Rs. 5,27,265/- was rejected on account of limitation and the remaining amount of Rs. 25,733/- was rejected for non-production of documents. 4. In order to prove that for cla....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s: i. Assistant Collector of Customs Vs Anam Electrical Manufacturing Co. [1997(90)ELT 260(S.C.) ii. MCI Leasing (P) Ltd Vs CCE, C & ST Mysore[2012-TIOL-54-HC-KAR-ST] iii. Avanti Feeds Ltd Vs CC Chennai [2007(213)ELT 280(Tri-Bang)] iv. CCE Hyderabad Vs XL Telecom Ltd [2006(206)ELT 303 (Tri-Bang)] v. Miles India Ltd Vs ACC [1987(3)ELT 641(S.C.)] vi. Agro Packi Vs CCE Surat-II[2009(238)ELT 750(Tri-Ahmd)] vii. CCE Raipur Vs Manorath Builders (P) Ltd [2010(18)STR 453(Tri-Del)] 6. I have heard both sides and perused the records. As per the impugned order passed by the Commissioner rejecting the refund sought by the appellant on two grounds namely time bar as well as non-production....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e keeping in view the various judgments cited by the learned A.R., I am of the considered opinion that the refund to the tune of Rs. 5,27,265/- is barred by limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act 1944. Now coming to the rejection of refund of Rs. 25,733/- which was dismissed for non-production of evidence, the counsel for the appellant submitted that though he did not have the opportunity to produce the documents before the adjudicating authority because the adjudicating authority has passed the order ex-parte, in violation of the principles of natural justice. He further submitted that he produced all the documents before the Commissioner (Appeals) but the Commissioner did not consider the same. He further submitted that he....