2018 (12) TMI 1115

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ax registration accordingly. 2. Appellant filed a refund claim of service tax of Rs. 4,73,771/- on 27.03.2017 under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (as made applicable in service tax matters by virtue of Section 83 of Finance Act, 1944) on the ground that Commissioner(Appeals) vide Order-in-Appeal No. 182/2010 dated 23/29.04.2010 have set aside the service tax demand of Rs. 9,98,741/- as was otherwise confirmed vide Order-in-Original No. 18/2009 dated 13/17.08.2009. Aggrieved with the said Order-in-Appeal, the Department preferred an Appeal before this Tribunal. The same was dismissed vide Final Order No. ST/A/54713-54715/2016 dated 21.10.2016 vide SCN No. 3306 dated 09.05.2017. 3. Department has proposed to reject the sai....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... arises for it to be time barred. With respect to non submission of documents, it is submitted that all the documents have been discussed in detail in the previous O-I-O as well as O-I-A. No question of submitting them afresh at all arises. Otherwise also, it is nothing beyond a procedural lapse. 6. While rebutting these arguments and justifying the Order under challenge it is submitted that the refund in question admittedly arises due to Commissioner(Appeals) Order dated 29.04.2010. It would have been filed within one year from the said date. The refund as filed on 27.03.2017 is beyond more than six years of the relevant date. Hence, has rightly been rejected. Appeal is accordingly prayed to be dismissed. 7. After hearing both the pa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....form of tax. The amount which has been dropped by the Commissioner(Appeals) vide the Order of April 2010 was the proposed demand of service tax since the appellant has held to not to be liable for the said deposit. The only provision for seeking the refund in the Act is Section 11B. Hence, the said Section is applicable irrespective the amount was paid by mistake or under protest as apparent from the above provision. I draw my support from the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Limited Vs. Union of India 1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 (S.C.) as has been relied upon by the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case Veer Overseas Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Panchkula 2018 (GSTL) 59 wherein it was held that the....