2014 (6) TMI 425

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the refund claim has been rejected by the lower authorities holding that same is barred by limitation. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant rented their premises to CESTAT, Mumbai and during the period June 2007 to July, 2008, they paid service tax on the rent received under the category of renting of immovable property service. As .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 are not applicable to the facts of this case. Therefore, their claim is not barred by limitation. To support this contention she relied on CCE vs. Shankar Ramchandra Auctioneers 2010 (19) STR 222 4. On the other hand, ld. AR relied on the decision of Mafatlal Inds. 1997(89)ELT 247(SC) - 2002-TIOL-54-SC-CX wherein it was held that all the refund are gove .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X