9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1120X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... beyond the period of one year from the relevant date in terms of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant, M/s. Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd., were the holders of Centralized Service Tax Registration No. AAECK7281MST001 for providing/receiving taxable services namely (i) Technical Inspection and Certificate Agency Service (ii) Management, Maintenance or Repair Service (iii) Scientific & Technical Consultancy Service (iv) Renting of immovable property service (v) Works Contract Service, and (vi) Legal Consultancy Service. M/s. KPTCL are primarily engaged in the activity of transmission of electricity from power generating companies to the power distribution compan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refund was filed beyond the period of one year from the relevant date as prescribed in Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 3. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case. 4. Ld. Counsel for the appellants submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the material evidence placed on record. He further submitted that the appellants have paid the duty twice by mistake/oversight on supervision charges but the said duty was paid under protest and therefore the refund claim would not be barred by limitation as per the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. He further submitted that the Service Tax was paid in consequence t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tation. He further submitted that in terms of the second proviso to Section 11B(1) of Central Excise Act, 1944, the time limit would not be applicable. He further submitted that the order vacating the protest will be considered as validly passed on 09.01.2017 wherein the taxes along with interest has been confirmed and the amount already remitted by the appellant in respect of such demand was appropriated after vacating the protest. 5. On the other hand, the Ld. AR defended the impugned order. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that the appellants have filed the refund application on 17.01.2017 after the vacation of the protest vide the Order-in-Original No. 01/17-ADC dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
