TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 1151
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....city shall not be required to be paid. The following amounts paid by appellant was claimed as refund by them: Amount (Rs.) Paid on 1,98,424 1,10,305 46,425 29.09.2009 53,806 05.12.2009 1,08,689 04.01.2010 3,056 26,132 01.03.2010 1,31,934 29.03.2010 (Challan produced at adjudication stage) 5,00,000 08.01.2011 5,00,000 17.01.2011 Total : 16,81,771 2. The refund sanctioning authority held that the refund claim is filed on 11.07.2011 which is after lapse of six months from issue of notification and hence is hit by time bar. Another ground for denying the refund was that the Notification No. 45/2010-ST is not applicable to appellant since they are engaged in ECIS and not in Transmission/Distribution of electricity. On first appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection of refund. Hence the appellant is now before us. 3. The main contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that the refund claim was rejected on two grounds. Regarding the first ground of rejection that refund is hit by limitation 11C (2) since not filed in six months from ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sp; The aforesaid dispute resulted in a number of show cause notices demanding service tax on such services provided related to Distribution/Transmission of electricity. We find that show cause notice O.R 35/2011-ADJN. ST(Commissioner) (HQ POR No.01/2011-STATE 1) dated 21.01.2011 was inaddition to this very appellant assessee for non-payment of service tax under the category ECIS etc., as the department harboured a view that services rendered by the appellant with Power Distribution/Transmission Companies were not eligible for exemption under notification no.45/2010-ST, reference of which has been made in SCN dated 30.12.2011 related to the present appeal. 8. Subsequently, however the Government has issued a Notification No. 45/2010-ST dated 20.07 7010 the relevant portion of which is reproduced below: "Whereas, as Central Government is satisfied that a practice was generally prevalent regarding levy of service (including non-levy thereof), under section 66 of the Finance Act, 1994 (32 of 1994) (hereinafter referred to as the Finance Act), on all taxable services relating to transmission and distribution of electricity provided by a p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....under lease agreement to a business organisation and received payment to that effect The department entertained the view that the appellant has provided taxable services under the category of "Erection Commissioning or Installation Services (EOS)" and Renting of Immovable Property Services, however, have neither disclosed these facts to the Department nor discharged appropriate service tax liability thereon. 2. In adjudication proceedings, service tax demand of Rs. 60, 68,455/- was confirmed on services rendered under the category of ECI Services. Demand of Rs. 4,91,145/- was confirmed on services rendered under the category of Renting of Immovable Property. Hence this appeal. 3. The learned Cousel appearing for the appellant Shri R. Raghvendra Rao submitted that the challenge in this appeal is now limited to the demand, interest, penalty etc, confirmed under ECIS. He pointed out that the issue is no longer res integra as the same is settled in the following cases: • Shri Genesh Enterprises Vs CCE, Hyderabad-III [2014-TIOL-187-CESTAT-BANG] • K Shanmugavelu Vs CCE, Mudurai [2014-T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reof, in case where a duty becomes refundable as a consequence of judgment , decree, order or direction of appellate authority, Appellate Tribunal or any court, the refund claim can be made before the expiry of one year from the date of such judgment decree or direction. The statutory interpretation in such a situation, as distilled from settled law, is that when there are in an enactment two provisions which cannot be reconciled, they should be so interpreted that if possible, effect should be given to both. This is what is called as harmonious construction. Only if this is not possible as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in South India Corporation (P) ltd Vs Board of Revenue, Trivandrum [AIR 1964 SC 207 at page 215]. "A familiar approach in all such cases is to find out which of the two apparently conflicting provisions is more general and which is more specific and to construe the more general one as to exclude the more specific". This principle is expressed in the maxims "Generalia specialibus non derogent" and "Generalia specalia derogent" which means that general things will not derogate from the special provisions and is invoked to determine the scope of a general enac....