2018 (11) TMI 93

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....6 and 2006-2007. During this period the appellants received advances from prospective buyers who were interested in purchasing residential apartments in the projects under construction. Department, initially was of the view that appellants will be liable to payment of service tax on the advances received from the customers under the category of 'Construction of Residential Complex'. The appellants were persuaded to make payment of service tax as contended by the revenue. Subsequently, w.e.f. 01.07.2010, the definition of 'Construction of Complex Service' underwent an amendment by introduction of explanation in Section 65 (105) (zzzh). The explanation had the effect of restricting the liability for service tax only in those cases where amoun....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Infotech vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, [2018(7) TMI 276 Madras High Court]. 5. Ld. Consultant further submitted that even though the refund claims have been filed beyond the period of one year from the date of payment of duty, such duty deposits have been made under the compulsion of the department and are to be considered as paid under protest. The Commissioner (Appeals) has referred to the letter dated 14.09.2006 filed by the appellants by way of protest. Specifically they brought to our notice the letter dated 28.03.2006 filed by one of the appellants M/s Z Konark before the jurisdictional Commissioner recording protest. He claimed that other appellants have also filed similar letters of protest. Finally, he submitted that the a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tion of explanation. Hence, on merit the appellants were not liable for payment of service tax. 9. The refund claims stand rejected mainly on the ground of time bar in terms of Section 11B. The section provides that refund claims are to be filed within one year from the date of payment of tax. Such strict time limits will not be applicable in case the payment of tax is made under protest. The refund claims under dispute have been filed beyond the period of one year and have been held to be time barred. But the appellants submit that they were forcefully asked to pay the service tax which were not liable to be paid. They have also referred to the letter of protest dated 28.03.2006 in respect of one of the appellants. Any letter of protest f....