2016 (1) TMI 68

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rd. 2. The issue here is non-sanction of refund totalling to Rs. 2,02,445/- for the period of July 2007 to November 2008 mainly on the ground that appellant did not make payments of this amount of service tax under protest; when the appellant did not pay under protest, the refund claim filed after the expiry of one year from the relevant date is time barred under provisions of Section 11 B of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lant cites the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd Vs UOI [1997(89) E.L.T. 247 (S.C.)]. In this decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court inter alia stated as below: 83. It is then pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioners-appellants that if the above interpretation is placed upon amended Section 11B, a curious consequence will follow. It i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t been filed within six months from the date of payment of duty. We think that the entire edifice of this argument is erected upon an incomplete reading of Section 11B. The second proviso to Section 11B (as amended in 1991)expressly provides that "the limitation of six months shall not apply where any duty has been paid under protest". Now, where a person proposes to contest his liability by way o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f the relevant date as prescribed under Section 11 B of the Central Excise Act 1944. The learned A.R. says that when there is no protest on record by the appellant, this refund amounting to Rs. 2,02,445/- is time-barred and cannot be sanctioned. 4.1 Learned A.R. also cites the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of Sarita Handa Exports (P) Ltd Vs UOI [2015 (321) .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... for the two periods as the service tax was not chargeable, it is not understood why the department had been insistent on separate written protest for each payment against the said services which were not liable for payment of service tax. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Vs UOI (supra) supports the view point of the appellant and this amount of serv .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X