TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 57X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD THAT:- It is found that on applying Section 11B of the Central Excise Act to the refund claims, a portion of the refund claims be time barred; however, the claim of the appellant relating to the tax amount paid on 29.06.2017 may not be hit by limitation prescribed under Section 11B. Also, there is an argument on merit relating to Point of Taxation Rules. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2/2022 passed by the Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals), Bangalore. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant filed refund claim for Rs.41,07,587/- on 29.06.2018 on the ground that the service tax amount paid in rendering taxable services viz. Technical testing and analysis services in excess, during the period October 2015 to June 2017. In the application, it is claimed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; therefore on merit, the refund is admissible to them. It is her contention that the amount paid since not tax but a deposit and hence refundable. In support, she refers the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of NIIT Limited Vs. Commissioner, CGST, Delhi East [2023-VIL-38-CESTAT-DEL-ST]. 4. Per contra, learned AR for the Revenue submits that the appellant has correctly discharged service ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring the period in question; during the said period, the services had not been rendered and the same were rendered during GST regime. 6. Heard both sides and perused records. 7. I find that applying Section 11B of the Central Excise Act to the refund claims, a portion of the refund claims be time barred; however, the claim of the appellant relating to the tax amount paid on 29.06.2017 may no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
