9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (4) TMI 671X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missioner (Appeals)’s order is incorrect only to the extent it has allowed the refund claim - Revenue’s appeal is allowed only to this extent and the Commissioner (Appeals)’s order stands modified - ST/138/2007-SM - 517/2010-SM(BR)(PB) - Dated:- 20-4-2010 - Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (T) REPRESENTED BY : Shri I. Baig, DR, for the Appellant. S/Shri Rajesh Jain and B.L. Narsimhan, Advocates, for the Respondent. [Order]. The facts leading to this appeal are, in brief, as under : 1.1 The Appellant during the period from16-8-02to March 03 paid an amount of Rs. 12,19,287/- as service tax by treating their activity as Advertising Agency Service. Subsequently, on realizing that their activity was not covered by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inance Act, 1994, it would be governed by the limitation period prescribed under this Section; that the Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly held that this is a case where the tax was paid without authority of law and limitation period would not apply and that Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 (S.C.) has held that once a refund claim is filed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, it would be governed by the provisions of that section and that in view of this, he pleaded that the impugned order is not correct. 2.2 Shri B.L. Narsimhan, Advocate, the learned Counsel for the Respondent, pleaded that he concedes that the limitation period prescribed under Secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laim on29-8-03. Though on defects and deficiencies being pointed out by the Department, they submitted the revised refund claim on17-3-04, it is29-8-03which has to be treated as the date for filing the claim. Since both sides agree that the refund would be governed by the limitation period prescribed under Section 11B, it is only the refund claim of Rs. 82,544/- of the service tax for the month of July 02 paid on 16-8-02, which would be hit by time bar and the remaining claim would be within time. In view of this, the Commissioner (Appeals) s order is incorrect only to the extent it has allowed the refund claim of Rs. 82,544/- of service tax paid on16-8-02. The Revenue s appeal is allowed only to this extent and the Commissioner (Appeals) s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
