2020 (2) TMI 44

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... appellants are service providers under the taxable category 'work contract service'. They are holders of service tax registration for collection and payment of service tax on the taxable service provided by them. On the basis of Circular No.108/2/2009 dated 29.1.2009, the appellant filed a refund claim on 5.5.2009 for service tax amounting to Rs. 7,95,980/- paid during the period February 2008 to November 2008. After due process, the claim was rejected by the original authority and appeal against the same was also rejected by Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order-in-Appeal No.TVM-EXCUS-000-APP-022-15-16 dated 28.4.2015. The appellant filed appeal against this in CESTAT, Bangalore which was allowed and remanded the matter to the original author....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Court dismissed on the ground that there is no substantial question of law involved in that case. He further submitted that the appellant paid the service tax by mistake but came to know subsequently when the Board issued the Circular. He further submitted that subsequent to the issuance of Board Circular, appellants realized that they are not required to pay service tax but paid the same under the mistake of fact/law and therefore, they filed the refund claim. He further submitted that demand of service tax is opposed to Article 262 of the Constitution because the same was collected by the department against the authority of law. 4. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order and submitted that this issue is no more r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...."law‟ within the meaning of Article 265 and any collection of retention of tax in accordance or pursuant to the said provisions is collection or retention under "the authority of law" within the meaning of the said Article". 10. Having examined various decided cases and the submissions of both the sides, we are of the considered view that a claim for refund of service tax is governed by the provisions of Section 11B for period of limitation. The statutory time limit cannot be extended by any authority as held by the Apex Court." 5.1 Further, I find that even the Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. Andrew Telecom (I) Pvt. Ltd. cited supra in paragraph 19 has held that the period of limitation as provided under Section 11B....