2023 (11) TMI 685

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tful result. Therefore, the matter is taken up for disposal on the basis of records and after hearing the Ld. A.R. for the Revenue. 2. This appeal is filed by the Revenue against Order-in-Appeal No. 95/2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & ST (Appeals), Cochin. 3. The respondent have filed a refund claim of Rs.1,42,48,182/- on 08.01.2010. Brief background of the case leading to the claim are that the respondent had entered into a contract with M/s SNC Lavalin, Canada to implement a project work and received 'Consulting Engineer Service' from the said overseas firm and paid consultancy charges to them. Two show cause notices were issued to the respondent on 28.04.2003 and 19.08.2003 demanding service tax of Rs.1,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd claim filed on 08.01.2010. On adjudication, the refund claim was rejected by the adjudicating authority. However, on appeal by the respondent, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) allowed their appeal by setting aside the order of rejection of refund. Hence, the Revenue is in appeal. 4. The ld. AR for the Revenue reiterating the grounds of the appeal has submitted that the present refund filed by the respondent on the ground that the service tax paid by them on receiving 'Consulting Engineer Service' from the overseas firm namely M/s SNC Lavalin, Canada during the period August 1998 to September 2002 is erroneous and the same was not required to be paid. The service Tax confirmed was paid by them under protest on the insistence of the depar....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... period of one year from the decision of the Tribunal in Hindustan Zinc Ltd's case (supra). Therefore, on this ground also, refund is liable to be rejected. 5. The short issue involved in the present appeal is: whether the refund of service tax paid by the respondent on receiving the consulting Engineers' service from the Overseas service provider during 1998 to 2002 be admissible to them, even after the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the liability to discharge the tax by the Appellant. 6. It is not in dispute that after confirmation of the demand of the service tax for the period by the adjudicating authority, the respondent approached the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) against the order of the adjudicating authority. The ld. Commissioner ....