2021 (8) TMI 1104

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....claim of Rs. 1,51,404/- was filed by the appellant for the reason that the aforesaid amount has been paid by the appellant in excess of the amount as was to be paid for the Service Tax liability of the appellant for the period of April, 2017 to June, 2017. Initial payment for the aforesaid quarter was made during 11.4.2017 to 24.4.2017. However, the Service Tax Return for the said quarter was filed on 15.8.2017. Since with effect from 01.07.2017 provisions of GST Act came into operation under which law the appellant was no more entitled to have the similar arrangement of adjusting the excess payment towards his future liability as was available under Rule 6 (4A) of Central Excise Act, 1944. Accordingly, the aforesaid refund was filed. Howev....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....payment of the total amount). In addition, it is submitted that the amount in question was in excess of Service tax liability, hence the said excess was the money of the appellant lying in Departments' account to be utilised for future liability. Since no services were provided by the appellant post June 30, the question of service tax liability of the appellant does not arise. Accordingly, the said amount cannot be considered as tax and the bar of limitation under section 11B cannot be fastened towards the said amount. Order under challenge is alleged to have wrongly been invoked. Section 11B B(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944, which is applicable to the Service Tax as well. Order accordingly, prayed to be set aside and appeal prayed to be a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d for the service tax liability of appellant as may occur after quarter ending on 30.06.2017. These admitted facts are sufficient for me to hold that the amount in question was not at all tax liability of the appellant. Hence, question of applicability of section 11B of Central Excise Act specially bar of limitation incorporated therein is not opined to be applicable to the given facts and circumstances. I draw my support from the decision of Tribunal Mumbai in the case of Fluid Controls Pvt. Ltd. vs CCE, Pune 1 reported in 2018 (364) ELT 1041 (Tri-Mum)]. 7. Though Hon'ble High Court of Mumbai in the case of Parijat Construction vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nashik reported in [2018 (9) SGSTL 8 (Bom)] wherein it has been held that ....