9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 120X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 06 and dropped the demand for the earlier period. The appellant claimed the consequential refund of service tax of Rs. 64,910/- paid under reverse charge mechanism which was dropped by the adjudicating authority. The appellant filed the refund claim on 05.12.2011 and the same was returned on 07.02.2011 with a query for rectifying the defect. The refund claim was again resubmitted on 01.03.2012. A show cause notice dated 01.05.2012 was issued for rejection of the refund claim as time barred. The adjudicating authority in his Order-in-Original No. 24/2012 dated 28.05.2013, rejected the refund claim as time bar. On appeal by the appellant, the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed their appeal and upheld the order of the adjudicating authority. Hen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dings of the adjudicating authority, commissioner (Appeals). She further submits that the claim was hit by time bar since it was filed beyond one year. She submit that the actual claim was submitted on 01.03.2012, which was clearly evident from the adjudication order. She relied upon the decision in the case of Hindustan petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. CCE, Mumbai - 2015 (317) ELT 379 (Tri.-Mum.). Hence both the authorities below rightly rejected the refund claim of the appellant. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions of both the sides and perused the records. The short issue is whether the refund claim of the appellant is hit by time bar. The LD. Advocate submitted a copy of the Chronological events, which is reproduced as under:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... service tax under protest on 14.08.2008. The protest is hereby vacated and the same is appropriated." It is seen from the above, the adjudicating authority has held that no service tax is payable for the period prior to 18.04.2006. It clearly evident from the above order that the appellants have paid the service tax amount of Rs. 18,24,156/- under protest on 14.08.2008. When the demand was dropped for the period prior to 18.04.2008, they are eligible for the consequential refund and they have rightly filed the refund claim on 05.12.2011, which is well within the time limit of one year from the date of order. Hence, the appellants are rightly entitled for the refund as the service tax was paid under protest and no time limit applies. 5. E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
