2018 (1) TMI 559

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eement entered into for that purpose were subject to renewal on the same terms of conditions. The audit team of the service tax department, during the course of audit of the records of the appellant, observed that the appellant is liable to pay service tax on Notional Interest earned on amount of security deposit received by it. On the basis of such audit objection, the appellant had deposited the service tax into the Central Government account. Thereafter, the appellant had filed the refund application dated 12.8.2009, claiming refund of Rs. 31,32,562.75. The refund application was filed in Form-R, mentioning as under : "Notional Interest on the interest free deposit taken from sub licenses cannot be treated as deemed rent and cannot fo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pur - 2014 (35) STR 587 ) (Tri.-Mumbai); (ii) CCE, Pune-III Vs. Shankar Ramchandra Auctioneers - 2010 (19) STR 222 (Tri.-Mumbai); (iii) Jubilant Enterprises P. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Mumbai - 2014 (35) STR 430 (Tri.-Mumbai); (iv) Hexacom (I) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaipur - 2003 (156) ELT 357 (Tri.-Del.); (v) Natraj and Venkat Associates Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai-II - 2010 (17) STR 3 (Mad.); (vi) CCE (Appeals), Bangalore Vs. K.V.R. Construction - 2012 (26) STR 195 (Kar); (vii) CCE, Bangalore-III Vs. Motorola India Pvt. Ltd. - 2006 (206) ELT 90 (Kar.); (viii) Ebiz.com Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE & ST, Noida - 2017 (49) STR 389 (All); 5. On the other hand, the ld. DR appearing for the Revenue submitted that since the appel....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ertained by original authority in terms of the statutory provisions and rejected the application, on the ground that the claim application was filed beyond the prescribed limit of one year from the relevant date. 8. With regard to time limit for filing the refund application, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Doaba Co-operative Sugar Mills (supra) held that in making claims for refund before the departmental authority, an assessee is bound within four corners of the statute and the period of limitation prescribed in the Central Excise Act and the rules famed there under should be adhered to. It has further been held that the authorities functioning under the Act are bound by the provisions of the Act. Further, in the case of Miles....