2013 (10) TMI 1438

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 6-2007 was issued to the appellant demanding Service Tax of ₹ 5,44,101/- [Rs. 5,31,691/- under management, maintenance or repair service or MMR and ₹ 12,410/- under commercial construction service ] for the period from April, 2004 to September, 2006 and January, 2005 to September, 2005 respectively. Order was passed by the Joint Commissioner on 21-12-2008 demanding totalling to ₹ .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t enrichment. The amount was paid by the appellant on 24-8-2007 and 6-9-2007 and therefore the refund claim should have been filed within one year from those days according to the Revenue. 3. The learned counsel on behalf of the appellant relies on the decision in the cases of CCE, Nasik v. Motor Industries Co. Ltd. [2006 (205) E.L.T. 274 (Tri.- Bang.)], Bajaj Auto Ltd. v. CCE, Aurangabad [2007 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... gs and consequential relief claim filed after the matter is decided by the Tribunal. 4. I have considered the submissions made by both the sides. The proviso (ec) of Explanation to sub-section (5) of Section 11B is very clear and makes the limitation of one year applicable to refund claims filed consequent to the decisions of appellate authority/Tribunal or Court in favour of the appellant. How .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X