TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (11) TMI 1226
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ioner (Appeals) vide above referred order is assailed in this appeal. 2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, is that Service Tax was collected from Appellant by M/s. Paresh and deposited by it in respect of construction service pertaining to port rendered to Appellant that was originally exempted from payment of Service Tax vide Mega exemption Notification No. 25/2012-ST at Sr. No. 14(a), but was temporarily withdrawn vide Notification dated 01.03.2015 and restored again w.e.f. 01.03.2016 by way of insertion of Sr. No. 14A Notification No. 09/2016-ST dated 01.03.2016. Inadvertently, Appellant continued to pay the Service Tax collected and paid through its service providers M/s. Paresh and after realising that no Service Tax was infect payabl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....incidence of tax liability, was held to be entitled to get refund in respect of invoices which were raised within one year form the date of its refund application i.e. on 28.06.2016. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.25,92,713/- was sanctioned in favour of the Appellant and refund on other invoices amounting to Rs.30,94,725/- was rejected on the ground that the same was time barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act in as much as the claim had been filed beyond one year from the date of invoices, hence this appeal. 3. During the course of hearing of the appeal, learned Counsel for the Appellant Mr. Abhishek Deodhar submitted that period of limitation as prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, though applicable as far as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng goods and since construction service being a continuous process cannot be said to be purchased on a particular date, sub-clause (e) to Section 11B(5B) of Central Excise Act cannot be taken for the purpose of determination of relevant date for which sub-clause (f) would apply to the case of the Appellant, for which the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is unsustainable in law and facts. 4. In response to such submissions learned Authorised Representative for the Respondent-Department Mr. S.B.P. Sinha argued in support of the reasoning and rationality of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and stated that since Appellant is not the person who deposited the tax before the authority, it has to be put in the category of a....