2018 (4) TMI 667

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d of the amount paid as service tax though not payable. Respondent herein received an order for fabrication of goods from his customers; after carrying out fabrication activity supplied the finished goods to their customers, raised invoices for labour charges; discharged service tax liability on the invoices raised for labour charges and filed returns with the authorities. Revenue authorities initiated action against the respondent alleging that fabrication activity undertaken by him is amounting to manufacture and hence liable for Central Excise duty.  Show cause notice dated 20/01/2013 was issued for demand of Central Excise duty, which was settled by the appellant before the Settlement Commission. Subsequently, they filed an applica....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... A206 (SC)] and the judgment of the Hon'ble High Courts MCI Leasing Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of   Central Excise, Mysore [2014 (33) S.T.R. 497 (Kar.)] and Andrew Telecom (I) Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, , Goa [2014 (34) S.T.R. 562 (Bom..). 6. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the revenue authorities in this case have themselves accepted the fact that the respondent is not required to discharge service tax liability during the period in question and is required to discharge Central Excise duty which they have done so. It is submission that the amount collected as service tax by the Revenue authorities is without the authority of law and the limitation as prescribed under the provisions....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....held that the amount paid as service tax by the respondent was held back by Revenue authorities without any authority of law. I find that the first appellate authority in the impugned order has correctly appreciated the factual aspect and the law on the point of refund claim being wrongly rejected on limitation. The findings of the first appellate authority are undisputed inasmuch that the respondent had made payment of service tax under an assumption that the respondent was liable to do so when there was no liability. I find that the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Parijat Constructions (supra) an d In House Productions Ltd (supra) and SGR Infratech Ltd (supra) are directly on the point and covers the issue ....