9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 430X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A HIGH COURT], where it was held that refund application beyond period specified under Section 11B of the Central Excise could not be entertained - the refund claim is barred by limitation - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - ST/2149/2012-SM - 20838/2017 - Dated:- 5-6-2017 - Shri S.S. Garg, Judicial Member Shri Pradyumna. G.H, Advocate For the Appellant Shri K.T. Pakshi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 14 of the Central Excise Act read with Section 83 of the Service Tax Act and subsequently the appellant deposited an amount of ₹ 6,09,087/- towards service tax. Thereafter, appellant came to know that the Government of India has issued Circular No.123/5/2010-TRU dated 24.5.2010 clarifying that the activity of trenching and laying cables alongside road is not a taxable activity and cannot b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the records. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order rejecting the refund only on time bar is not sustainable in law. He further submitted that the appellant was not liable to pay the service tax because the activity of trenching and laying of cable are not a taxable activity under erection, commissioning and installation service. He further submitted that both ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd. Vs. CC: 2008 (221) ELT 336 (Del.) CCE, Jaipur-I Vs. Hexacom India Ltd.: 2006 (1) STR 110 (Tri.-Del.) 5. On the other hand, the learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order and submitted that refund claim filed by the appellant is subject to Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. He relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Hyderabad-II vs. Excel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upra) of the P H High Court was upheld by the Supreme Court and reported in 2015 (321) ELT A206 (SC). The learned AR further submitted that the Division Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Prabhakar C. Survarna Vs. CCE reported in 2015-TIOl-2576-CESTAT-BANG , after following the Supreme Courts decision of Anam Electrical and Mafatlal Industries has held that refund claim is subject ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
