9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 559X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri Rajveer Singh, Advocate - for the appellant Shri G.R. Singh, D.R. - for the respondent ORDER Rejection of refund claim under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on the ground of limitation, is the subject matter of present dispute. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant sub-licensed its premises to different parties on receipt of interest free security deposits for a period of 9 years and 11 months. The agreement entered into for that purpose were subject to renewal on the same terms of conditions. The audit team of the service tax department, during the course of audit of the records of the appellant, observed that the appellant is liable to pay service tax on Notional Interest earned on amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce of business and commerce cannot be regarded as service for the purpose of levy of service tax. Thus, the appellant submitted that since the amount deposited by the appellant cannot be considered as service tax, the time limit prescribed in Section 11B of the Act cannot be applied for rejection of the same. To support such stand, the ld. Advocate has relied on the following decisions rendered by the judicial forums: (i) Shravan Banarasilal Jejani Vs. CCE, Nagpur 2014 (35) STR 587 ) (Tri.-Mumbai); (ii) CCE, Pune-III Vs. Shankar Ramchandra Auctioneers 2010 (19) STR 222 (Tri.-Mumbai); (iii) Jubilant Enterprises P. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Mumbai 2014 (35) STR 430 (Tri.-Mumbai); (iv) Hexacom (I) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaipur 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7. In this case, the undisputed and admitted facts are that the appellant had paid service tax under the taxable category of renting of immovable property service, pursuance to the objections raised by the Audit Wing of the Service Tax Department and such amount paid by the appellant was claimed as refund in the prescribed format provided under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. Since, the appellant has filed a refund application under Section 11B of the Act, the said application was considered and entertained by original authority in terms of the statutory provisions and rejected the application, on the ground that the claim application was filed beyond the prescribed limit of one year from the relevant date. 8. With regard to time ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
