2018 (12) TMI 791

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....so 'on-line information and data processing services' duly registered with the Service Tax department. During the period 01.04.2006 to 31.03.2007, the appellants provided 'information technology software services' to M/s. Yes Bank and paid Service Tax to the tune of Rs. 5,25,862/-. However, the 'information technology software services' became taxable only w.e.f. 16.05.2008, and as such no Service Tax was required to be paid in respect of the same prior to the said date. The appellants realized their mistake that the Service Tax was paid by them inadvertently and accordingly filed a refund claim of the same on 03.01.2011. 2. The said refund claim stand denied by the original adjudicating authority on the ground of limitation. The appeal th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Commissioner of Customs v. Anam Electrical Manufacturing Company [1997 (90) E.L.T. 260(SC)] wherein while dealing with the limitation aspect under Section 11B, it was observed that statutory time limit is not extendable by any authority or Court in case of illegal levy. Reference was also made to Delhi High Court's decision in the case of Jumay Foam Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India [2003 (157) E.L.T. 252 (Del.)]. 5. In fact we find that the applicability of the limitation as provided under Section 11B to the various refunds filed under the Act has since long been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Courts in the case of Collector of C.Ex., Chandigarh vs. Doaba Co-operative Sugar Mills [1988 (37) E.L.T. 478 (S.C.)], wherein, inter alia, it was held a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....itation, not tenable even if tax is paid under a mistake of law - Refund not admissible - Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 as applicable to Service Tax vide Section 83 of Finance Act, 1994 - Article 226 of Constitution of India [paras 7, 8,9] At this stage we may also take note of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of Porcelain Electrical Mfg. Co. v. Collector of C.Ex., New Delhi [1998 (98) E.L.T. 583 (S.C.)], vide which the Hon'ble Supreme Court rejected the assessee's stand that since the duty has been paid under mistake of law, the period of limitation applicable would be three years. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed that the decisions where assessee has invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Cour....