9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 391X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... visions of section 11B would admittedly apply. As per the said provisions, the refund can be staked only within the period of one year from the relevant date. The authorities working under the said act are bound by the provisions of the act, and cannot travel beyond section 11B - the refund claim having filed after a period of one year from the date of payment of the same, stands rightly rejected on the ground of limitation - appeal rejected - decided against appellant. - Appeal No. ST/1848/2010-ST(SM) - Final Order No. 54058/2016-ST(SM) - Dated:- 6-10-2016 - Hon'ble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member ( Judicial ) Shri A.K. Batra, Advocate for the Applicants Shri H.C. Saini, DR for the Respondent ORDER Per Archana Wadhwa: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ayya Colour Studio Vs. Commissioner 2008 (11) STR 125 (Tri-Bang.) was dismissed. The consequence of dismissal of Revenue s appeal by the Hon ble Supreme court was that the value of the material shall not be included while computing the value of the services. 3. Within a period of two months from aforesaid declaration of law by the Hon ble Supreme Court, the appellant filed the refund claim of ₹ 1,51,881/- dated 13.06.2009. They were issued the show cause notice dated 16.09.2009 proposing to reject the refund claims as barred by limitation. The notice culminated into an order passed by the original Adjudicating Authority rejecting the refund as barred by limitation. The said order of the Assistant Commissioner was upheld by Commissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecision in other assessee s case laying down that the value of the materials is not required to be added in the value of the services, was passed, the appellant approached the Revenue for refund of the excess amount deposited by them. However, by that time a period of three years had already lapsed. When the assessee at the time of deposit of the dues never contested the same and deposited the same as service tax under the accounting head of service tax, it has to be considered that the appellant agreed with the view of the audit, accepted their liability and deposited the service tax, without contesting the same. It is not the appellant s case that the said service tax was deposited with a protest to the Revenue s stand. If that be so, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
