2017 (6) TMI 430

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... against the impugned order dated 8.5.2012 whereby the Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeal of the appellant and upheld the Order-in-Original. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that appellant had undertaken the activity of trenching and laying of cables under/alongside roads for their customers viz., BSNL and TATA Teleservices during the period from 16.6.2005 to 16.9.2008. The offi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....iled a refund claim of Rs. 6,09,087/- with the Deputy Commissioner vide letter dated 17.8.2010. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner issued a show-cause notice dated 23.9.2010 proposing to reject the said claim being hit by limitation in terms of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act and that the appellant did not produce documentary evidence to prove that the burden of service tax paid by him had ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d cable laying was not leviable to service tax under the erection, commissioning and installation service. He further submitted that the amount paid during the investigation, at the instance of the Revenue Officer, is not a duty and is only a deposit and therefore, the limitation prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act will not be applicable and in support of his submission. He reli....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lector Vs. Anam Electrical Manufacturing Company: 1997 (90) ELT 260, it was held that statutory time limit is applicable to claim for refund of even illegal levies and time limit cannot be extended by any authority. He relied upon the decision in the case of Sarita Handa Exports (P) Ltd. Vs. UOI reported in 2015 (321) ELT 434 (P&H) wherein the Hon'ble High Court of P & H held that refund applicati....