TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (6) TMI 217
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s Six Lakhs Four Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy Nine only) on the ground that the refund claim is time-barred. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are functioning as Chartered Accountant and are registered under the Service Tax and they have entered into a contract with the Mangalore Electricity Supply Company (MESCOM) for rendering the services of opening ledger accounts, preparation of monthly bills, preparation of skeleton bills, accounting of demands and recoveries, maintenance of daily abstracts and tallying, preparation and issue of disconnection lists to field staff and preparation of union MIS and consolidated DCB statements as per the agreement entered into with MESCOM. Appellants have been filing the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and of balance amount of Rs. 51,942/- (Rupees Fifty One Thousand Nine Hundred and Forty Two only) under Section 68 and Section 73 of the Finance Act and also imposed penalty under Section 76 and 78. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide order dated 02.08.2006 allowed the appeal of the assessee and set aside the order dated 28.02.2006. Thereafter the Revenue feeling aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) filed appeal before the CESTAT and CESTAT vide Final Order dated 23.01.2008 dismissed the appeal filed by the Department and confirmed the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 02.08.2006. Aggrieved by the order of the CESTAT Revenue challenged the said order before t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ubmitted that the duty paid and subsequently challenged before the appellate authority is to be considered as duty paid under protest. He further submitted that the total amount of service tax of Rs. 6,04,779/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Four Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy Nine only) paid by the appellant has to be considered as paid under protest. He further submitted that it is a settled law that when an assessee goes in appeal against an order of assessment and against the demand that itself is a protest and no formal letter of protest as required under Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules is necessary as held in the case of CCE Vs. BCL Forgings Ltd. 2005 (192) E.L.T. 922 (T-Mum.) and this view has also been upheld by the Larger Bench of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....und that the entire refund claim filed by the appellant was barred by time as the appellant should have filed the refund claim within one year from the date of Order-in-Appeal dated 02.08.2006 and not from the date of the order dated 18.04.2011 passed by the High Court of Karnataka. He also submitted that the impugned order partly dismissed the appeal by disallowing the refund of Rs. 4,08,749/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Eight Thousand Seven Hundred and Forty Nine only) and interest of Rs. 27,985/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Thousand Nine Hundred and Eighty Five only) [Rs. 4,44,820/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Forty Four Thousand Eight Hundred and Twenty only)] which is unsustainable in law being beyond the show-cause notice. In support of this submission, he re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Department was dismissed as reported in 2012 (26) S.T.R. 195 (Kar.). He further submitted that the appellants are also entitled for interest on delayed payment as the refund was not sanctioned within three months from the date of filing the refund application which was filed on 16.05.2012 and as per Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act 1944 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, the appellants are entitled for interest from the date of expiry of three months from the filing of the refund application and for this submission, he relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Vs. UOI 2011 (273) E.L.T. 3 (SC). Appellant has also placed reliance on the Order-in-Original dated 24.01.2014 passed by the Deputy Co....