AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (6) TMI 430
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ture, works contract service, etc. The appellant is also executing work for the State Government being CPWD and PWD, for which they were entitled to exemption under Mega Exemption Notification No.25/2012-ST. AS the exemption lapsed w.e.f. 1.4.2015, the appellant started depositing the tax. Subsequently, the Government extended the exemption benefit by making retrospective amendment in Notification No.25/2012-ST vide amending notification no.9/2016-ST dated 1.3.2016. Further, Section 102 of the Finance Act, 1994 sub-section (1) provided - "notwithstanding anything contained in Section 66 B, no service tax can be levied or collected for the period commencing from the 1st day of April, 2015 and ending with 29th day of Feb., 2016 (both days inc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The works for which refund was claimed were (a) construction of Police Station and Residential staff quarters at Dilshad Garden, Delhi, (b) construction of office building and staff quarters at Mandawali Fazalpur, Delhi and (c) construction of Police Station Building and Residential Staff Quarters at Khajuri Khas, Delhi. 3. The postal envelope sent by speed post containing the refund applications were returned by postal authorities on 25.11.2016 with the remarks "refused to accept" by the Department. Thereafter, the appellant filed the refund application in person and the same were filed on 5.12.2016. 4. Revenue after scrutinizing of the applications issued Deficiency Memo No.1034 dated 17.02.2017 requiring the appellant to file docum....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sonal hearing, counsel for the appellant also produced the original envelopes. However, the Adjudicating Authority doubted filing of the refund application by speed post on 8.11.2016 and considered the date of filing as 5.12.2016, and held that refund claim is barred by limitation. The Adjudicating Authority observed that from perusal of the envelope, it is difficult to ascertain as to which office, applications were sent through speed post since the Service Tax Division is not clearly visible whether it is 11 or II. Accordingly, the refund applications were rejected on the ground of limitation vide order-in-original dated 25.01.2018. 9. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who was pleased to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and further read with the Section 102(1) and (2), Service Tax was not payable on these specified services and the appellant is entitled to refund of the service tax paid during this period. Thus, the amount of tax deposited has taken the character of 'Revenue deposit' by operation of law. Further, there is no limitation for refund of revenue deposit. 14. Ld. Counsel also relies on Article 265 of the Constitution of India, which provides " no tax shall be levied or collected except by the Authority or law". 15. It is evident on the basis of the record that Revenue had refused to accept the speed post, which was dispatched on 8.11.2016, due to shifting of the Range Office of the service tax from CGO Complex, New Delhi-III to Ambedkar Bh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... New Delhi to Ambedkar Bhawan, Rohini, New Delhi. Thus, I hold that the appellant had dispatched the refund application well within the period of limitation, which was expiring on 14.11.2016. Such dispatch on 8.11.2016 is also proved by the fact that the appellant has soon thereafter receipt back of the mail with the remark "refused to accept", has again filed the application by hand on 5.12.2011. In this view of the matter, I hold that the refund application has been filed within the limitation as prescribed under Section 102(3) of the Finance Act. I further hold that in view of Section 102(1) and (2) of the Finance Act, the service tax deposited by the appellant has taken the changed character of revenue deposit, by operation of law as th....