9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1031X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellants are not questioned by the Revenue. The only aspect which is required to be decided is whether limitations for filing refund claim, specified in Section 11-B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 will be applicable to the amounts paid under mistaken belief that Service Tax on the activities carried out by appellant was leviable. It is now well settled, as per the relied upon case laws, that duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x Consultant) appearing on behalf of the appellant gave a detailed background of the appeals. It was his argument that the amount deposited with the Revenue has to be considered as a deposit as no service tax was leviable on appellant s activities and the time limit prescribed under Section 11-B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, will not be applicable. He also produced copy of orders passed by Adju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cise Act 1944, and have been correctly rejected. Learned (AR) thus strongly defended the orders passed by the lower authorities. 4. Heard both sides and perused the case records. Adjudicating Authority after considering the remand directions contained in OIA dated 20.11.2013 sanctioned refund claim of ₹ 76,400/- but rejected the remaining refund claim as time barred as per the ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nkat Associates vs. Asst. Commr. of S.T., Chennai-II [2010 (17) S.T.R. (Mad.)] , Madras High Court, after relying upon the Apex Court s order, held as follows:- in Union of India v. ITC Ltd [1993 (67) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) = 1993 Supp. (4) SCC 326], the Supreme court upheld the view taken by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court with regard to the question of limitation. On the question of limi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
