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

..... pondent. ORDER Show cause notice dated 8-6-2007 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 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... time-barred as well as on the ground of unjust 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.- .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... icable for the deposits made during the proceedings 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 authori .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X