AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (6) TMI 571
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction of a residential complex named VIVERA at property bearing No. 21, Koramangala Industrial layout, Bangalore, planning to construct 25 floors. The project was undertaken after obtaining due NOC from M/s Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. (HAL), and the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BBMP). Subsequently, M/s HAL revoked the NOC, against which the appellant filed WP No. 37571/2013(GM-RES) before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, who issued an interim order dated 23.10.2013 to the effect that no construction should be undertaken over above 40.00 meters from the ground level and accordingly the said residential complex was restricted to 17 floors. In the wake of the said litigation, various customers who had booked individual residential fl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion 11B of the Central Excise Act as made applicable to Service Tax vide Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who rejected the same. Hence, the present appeal. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned Consultant appearing for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law and the decisions rendered by various Tribunals. He further submitted that Section 11B of the Central Excise Act is not applicable as they are claiming refund of service tax paid in advance for which the appellant had not provided any service in terms of Ru....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce, collected Service Tax and paid to the Government exchequer. Hence, the amount paid is Service Tax only as per the law and hence it cannot be treated as deposit. The provisions governing Service Tax will apply. He further submitted that the decisions relied upon by the appellant in support of his submission are not applicable to the factual situation and they have been distinguished in subsequent decisions of the Tribunal and finally, the Larger Bench in the case of Veer Overseas Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Panchkula - 2018 (15) GSTL 59 (Tri. LB) has settled the issue regarding Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. Besides this, he also relied upon the following decisions: * ELGI Equipments Ltd. v. Commissioner of C.Ex., C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....admitted that the claim has been preferred in terms of the provisions of Section 11B. If that being the case, it cannot be said that except for limitation other provisions of Section 11B will be made applicable to the appellant. The Learned Counsel also did not advance such proposition. He repeatedly submitted that the amount is paid mistakenly. The same is not a tax and should be returned without limitation as mentioned in Section 11B. We are not convinced by such submission. 8. Here it is relevant to note that in various cases the High Courts and the Apex Court have allowed the claim of the parties for refund of money without applying the provisions of limitation under Section 11B by holding that the amount collected has no sanctity of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itutional. As already held that the appellant is liable to pay service tax on reverse charge basis but for the exemption which was not availed by them. We hold that the decision of the Tribunal in Monnet International Ltd. (supra) has no application to decide the dispute in the present referred case. We take note of the decision of the Tribunal in XL Telecom Ltd. (supra). It had examined the legal implication with reference to the limitation applicable under Section 11B. We also note that the said ratio has been consistently followed by the Tribunal in various decisions. In fact, one such decision reached Hon'ble Supreme Court in Miles India Limited v. Assistant Collector of Customs - 1987 (30) E.L.T. 641 (S.C.). The Apex Court upheld the d....