2018 (8) TMI 419

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r, Advocate for Appellant Shri Pawan Kumar Singh, Supdt (AR) for Respondent ORDER Per: Archana Wadhwa After hearing both the sides duly represented by Shri Rajesh Chhibber, Advocate for appellant and Shri Pawan Kumar Singh, Supdt (AR) for revenue we find that the appellant was engaged in providing services of Erection Commissioning and Installation to Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....collected by revenue and was not required to be paid, limitation prescribed under Section 11B of the Act would not be applicable. 3. However, Original Authority rejected the claim as barred by limitation. The said order of the original authority stands upheld by Commissioner (Appeals) and hence the present appeal. 4. Learned Advocate is not disputing the fact that the refund claim was filed ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....such refund, would become redundant. 6. Apart from the above, we also note that Commissioner (Appeals) have relied on various decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following cases:- • Union of India Vs Namdang Tea Estate reported at 2004 (164) ELT 132 (SC), • Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise Vs Kashyap Engg & Metallurgicals Pvt. Ltd. reported at 2002 (142) ....