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

..... S. Garg The present appeal is directed 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....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....installation service. Accordingly appellant filed 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 th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..../5/2010 dated 25.5.2010 holding that trenching and 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 app....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....6 (206) ELT 303 wherein relying upon the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of Assistant Collector 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. U....