2017 (8) TMI 398

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s in time, in terms of the provisions of Customs Act, 1962, the appellants auctioned the goods and auction proceeds are taken in their Balance-sheet as income . They were not paying any Service Tax on the said income, however, Revenue initiated proceedings by issue of summons in the year 2006 and the appellants voluntarily paid an amount of Rs. 54,48,401/- as Service Tax for the period 16.8.2002 to 21.6.2006. Thereafter the appellants started paying Service Tax as and when the abandoned goods were auctioned by them under the head of Storage and Warehousing Services . A show-cause notice was issued to the appellant seeking to recover duty for the period April, 2004 to March, 2009 in the year 2009. The said demand show-cause notice was droppe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....), on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. 1997 (89) ELT 247 (SC) and decision of the Tribunal in the case of Laxmi Board & Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. 2007 (208) ELT 384 (Tri-Mum) to assert that payment made during the investigation period are payments made under protest and the limitation does not apply to such deposits. 3.1 Learned Counsel argued that limitation under Section 11B is not applicable in this case when the tax itself was ab initio not leviable as has been held by the Commissioner while dropping the demand. He further argued that the refund is not hit by the doctrine of unjust enrichment. He argued that the invoices show that the appellant had charged only Sales Tax/VAT to the bidders and ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... any court. Hence date of order cannot be treated as relevant date. The relevant date will be the date of payment of Service Tax, Payment of Service Tax made prior to 10.03.2010 is hit by time bar. It was held in a catena of Judgments that the authorities functioning under an Act is bound by its provisions. For refund claim made before the departmental authorities, period of limitation provided under Customs Act/Central Excise Act or rules made there under is applicable." It can be seen that primary arguments for invocation of limitation is that the Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad des not fall under the category of judgment/decree/order of appellate authority, appellate Tribunal or any Court. It is s....