9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 185X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the same was furnished before the lower authorities. Also, the said document has not at all been discussed anywhere in the orders of both the lower authorities. This assumes importance especially in the light of the fact that the payment appears to have been made not during investigation, but post Order-in-Original but pending adjudication of the first appeal. Further, the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/S. 3E INFOTECH VERSUS CUSTOMS, EXCISE SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS-I) [ 2018 (7) TMI 276 - MADRAS HIGH COURT ] has categorically held that even when Service Tax was paid under mistake of law, the period of limitation cannot be invoked to deny the refund. Appeal allowed - de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t for refund of the same vide refund application dated 27.03.2017, etc. 2.2 Ld. Advocate also submitted that the payment towards duty itself was made under protest and therefore, the bar of limitation would not apply. Accordingly, he relied on the following decisions : (i) Crop Chemicals (India) Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Chandigarh 2014 (308) E.L.T. 594 (Tri. Del.); (ii) GS. Radiators Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Ludhiana 2004 (10) T.M.I. 158 CESTAT, New Delhi; (iii) Hutchison Max Telecom Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Mumbai 2004 (1) T.M.I. 114 CESTAT, New Delhi; (iv) Ind. Swift Lands Ltd. Vs. Commr. (2017) 78 taxmann.com 209 (P H). 2.3 He also placed reliance on the following decisions of the Hon ble High Court of Judicature at Madras, viz. : (i) Commr. of S.T., Chenn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Minutes of Board Meeting of the appellant-corporation held on 28.09.2011 wherein the Board had resolved to pay the Service Tax amount under protest. There is nothing on record nor in the pleadings of the appellant that the same was furnished before the lower authorities. Also, the said document has not at all been discussed anywhere in the orders of both the lower authorities. This assumes importance especially in the light of the fact that the payment appears to have been made not during investigation, but post Order-in-Original but pending adjudication of the first appeal. 6. The decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. ALD Automotive Pvt. Ltd. (supra) relied on by the Revenue deals with the mandatory requirement of Sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he order of the Commissioner dated 1-6-2007 cannot be called in question. Inasmuch as the above conclusions of the Tribunal were made based on relevant considerations of the claim of the respondent/assessee and were based mainly on facts relating to the first respondent-assessee, we do not find any question of law, much less substantial question of law to be entertained in this appeal. We, therefore, do not find any merits to entertain this appeal. The appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, M.P. No. 1 of 2010 is also dismissed. The same may not apply here since, there is Board resolution obviously voluntary, though the word protest is used, but nevertheless, the fact remains that the tax was paid to arrest interest. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
