TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (7) TMI 259
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ontract services have been provided by the appellant in the capacity of a sub-contractor of M/s. NBCC. The appellant however, had not paid any service tax on the belief that the services were exempted vide entry at Sl. No.12A of Notification No.25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012. On demand, the appellant deposited part amount of his service tax liability of Rs.12,00,290/- with the interest of Rs.35,342/- vide challans dated 09.08.2015. It is there after that the appellant was served with three Show Cause Notices i.e. No. 1914 of 31.03.2006, 4603 of 19.02.2019 and 5630 dated 28.03.2019 for demanding service tax of Rs.21,72,592/- for a period of February, 2015 to May, 2015; April 2016 to May, 2017 and for June, 2017 respectively alongwith the intere....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....liability. It is impressed upon that the amount paid pending investigation has been held to be an amount as paid under protest and it is nothing but a revenue deposit. Hence, Section 11B which is about the refund of duty will not be applicable to the aforesaid amount. The another provision for refund is section 35 F of Central Excise Act. Accordingly the later section only will be applicable to this amount as well. The refund of Rs.12,00,290/- is therefore alleged to have wrongly been rejected. Ld. Counsel has placed reliance upon the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner reported as 2022 (380) ELT 219 (Tri.), Continental Engines P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner reported as 2022 (382) ELT 522 (Tri.-Del.) & I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Union of India reported as 1997 (89) ELT 247 (S.C.) (para 83) has held that the amount paid pending investigation is nothing but the amount paid under protest. The said decision has been followed by this Tribunal in the case Dugger Fibers Pvt Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, CE, CGST, Delhi reported as 2021 (378) ELT 291 wherein it was held that the amount paid during the investigations ipso facto, is deemed to be paid under protest. There have been several decisions holding that such an amount cannot be called as an amount of duty, it is merely a revenue deposit, as has also been held by this Tribunal in the case Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner reported as 2022 (380) ELT 219 (Tri.). 7. I observe that the ground of rejecting this amount is tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e prism of section 11B of Central Excise Act the period of one year mentioned therein has to reckon from the relevant date. Explanation B in Clause (5) of Section 11B of the Act defines Relevant Date. Sub-clause (ec) thereof clarifies that where the duty becomes refundable as a consequence of judgement decree order or direction of appellate authority Appellate Tribunal or any Court, the date of such judgement decree, order or direction shall be the relevant date. In the present case the refund claim was filed pursuant to the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 18.01.2021. The claim was filed on 25.01.2021 i.e. within less than a week of the aforesaid order. It is not the case of Department that said order was ever appealed agai....