9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 421X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal dated 11.04.2011 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), New Delhi. The appellant is a Government of India undertaking who is registered with the large tax payer unit-Delhi. They provide services of maintenance of railway track and Railway siding to its clients. They undertook the maintenance of railway track for M/s NTPC for their Thermal power project. D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ead with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. When the issue was challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals), he upheld the rejection of refund. Aggrieved by the Impugned order, the present appeal has been filed. 2. With the above background, I heard Shri Anil Seth, ld. Counsel for the appellant as well as Shri R.K. Mishra, ld. AR for the respondent. 3. The submission of the Ld. Counsel is that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issioner of Central Excise, Jaipur 2003 INDLAW CESTAT 217. iv. Hind Agro Industries ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs & Ors 2007(98) DRJ1 (DB). 4. The ld. DR, on the other hand, reiterated the impugned order. His submission is that the amount has been paid by the appellant as Service Tax. Consequently, refund of the same will also be governed by the provision of the Service Tax statute. The Secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Counsel for the appellant is that the amount has been paid as Service Tax, when there was no requirement of making such payment to the Government. They have cited several decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as Delhi and Calcutta High Courts wherein refund has been permitted even in cases where the claims has been filed beyond the time limit specified in relevant sections governing the grant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
