2019 (8) TMI 428

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Shanmuganathan, Advocate For the Appellant Shri M. Jagan Babu, AC (AR) For the Respondent ORDER The brief facts of the case are that appellants are engaged in providing Business Auxiliary Service and are paying service tax under this category. Proceedings were initiated against the appellants for short payment of service tax under BAS. The Tribunal vide Final Order No.41626/2017 dt. 10.08....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ishnan appeared and argued the matter. He submitted that Tribunal vide its Final Order stated supra had set aside the demand for the extended period. However, the matter was remanded to the original authority for quantification of the demand falling within the normal period. The appellant had deposited Rs. 22,49,339/-towards the service tax demand during the pendency of the litigation. So also, an....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uld be eligible for refund. Alternatively, he argued that as per Board's Circular No.275/37/2K-CX.8A dated 02.01.2002, it has been clarified that Section 11B does not apply to the pre-deposits made during pendency of litigations. Therefore, the rejection of the refund claim alleging that it is barred by limitation cannot sustain. The amount deposited by the appellants during the pendency of the li....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....de the demand for the extended period and remanded the matter to the original authority for re-quantification of demand for the normal period. It is incumbent for the department to conduct an adjudication for quantifying the demand pursuant to the directions of the CESTAT. Thus, only after the adjudicating authority re-quantifies the amount for the normal period, the appellant would be eligible fo....