2017 (1) TMI 96

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ld by Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant are a mining company, which owns mines and engaged in selling of mined minerals. Mining is not a single and isolated activity but comprises of a series of activities involving excavation, overburden removal, extraction of mineral and other activities. Such services in relation to mining were received by the appellants from various contractors. The services so received from various service providers were related to raising and extraction of mineral along with other incidental work. Such service providers charged service tax from the appellants under an erroneous belief that service tax was leviable on such services rendered by them ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d that because they had not passed on the burden of such amount to any other person and had borne the complete incidence of such erroneous payment to the Government by themselves, they will not be unjustly enriched in the event of the refund being sanctioned and paid to them. When the issue was carried to the Commissioner (Appeals), he upheld the rejection of the refund claim. 3. Heard Ms. Rinky Arora, ld Advocate for the appellant and Shri Govind Dixit, ld. DR for the respondent/Revenue. 4. The main plea taken by the appellant is that the refund claim should not be rejected as time barred. They have submitted that the amount paid was not required to be paid as service tax since it pertained to the period prior to 1.6.2007; when th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....iled on 7.7.2009 for the tax paid prior to 1.6.2007 and hence, it has been filed beyond the period of one year permitted under Section 11 B. As such, we find no infirmity in the impugned order, where it has been held that the refund claim is liable to rejection on the ground of time bar. 7. The point seriously urged by the appellant before us is that various High Courts have permitted refund under similar circumstances, where tax has been collected by the Revenue, where it was not required to be paid. The appellant has relied upon three judgements of the Hon'ble High Courts, which have been referred to in some of the Tribunals judgements also. In the case of the KVR Construction, the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court held as follows:- ....