2024 (12) TMI 739 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - whether amount paid during the investigation as well as amount paid during the pendency of appeal proceeding before lower appellate authority by challenging order-in-original as well as order-in-appeal considered as deposit of the payment of tax and for which limitation period under section 11B will apply or not? - HELD THAT - It is found that the part refund was rejected and the same was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that the said amount is not in the nature of pre-deposit. Accordingly, the Section 11B is applicable. Hence, the refund filed after the stipulated period of one year was rejected on the ground of time bar. Prima facie view that out of the total amount which are in the same nature, how the part can be treated as pre-deposit and remaining is other than pre-deposit. Therefore this issue also needs reconsideration. The impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed by way of remand to the adjudicating authority for passing a fresh order.

Summary

The appeal involved whether amounts paid during investigation and appeal proceedings are considered as tax deposits. The appellant argued for a refund without time limit. The tribunal found part of the refund not as pre-deposit, applying Section 11B time limit. Various judgments cited were considered. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was remanded for fresh consideration. (Judgment pronounced on 02.10.2024)