TMI Blog2010 (12) TMI 331X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on’ble High Court of Karnataka has held that as the petitioner is not held liable to pay service tax in respect of civil structures constructed and put to use, the amount paid by the assessee to the Revenue be treated as deposit at the hands of the Government and the provisions of Section 11B have no bearing, the limitation of one year are not applicable - Hence, the same treated as deposited for that the respondent is entitled for the refund claim without invoking the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Accordingly, the respondents is entitled for the refund claim. - ST/188/2009 - A/695/2010-WZB/C-IV(SMB) - Dated:- 7-12-2010 - Shri Ashok Jindal, JJ REPRESENTED BY : Shri Manish Mohan, SDR, for the Appellant. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reliance on Brite Neon Signs v. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi reported in 2006 (2) S.T.R. 541 (T) = 2002 (149) E.L.T. 330 (Tri.-Del.). 4. On the other hand, the learned consultant for the respondent submitted that in this case it is no doubt that the respondent has not provided any service to their clients and have paid the amount as service tax advance and claimed the refund of the same, after returning the said amount to their client the refund claim was filed. In this case, the cause of action arose when the amount was refunded to their client and the date of reckoning the limitation is to be started from the date of refund of service tax amount to their clients. To support his contention he placed reliance on Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s also not coming from the facts that whether the assessee has returned the amount of service tax to their client or not? In fact, in the case of KVR (supra) the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka has held that as the petitioner is not held liable to pay service tax in respect of civil structures constructed and put to use, the amount paid by the assessee to the Revenue be treated as deposit at the hands of the Government and the provisions of Section 11B have no bearing, the limitation of one year are not applicable. Following the decision of the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of KVR Constructions (supra), in this case, it is also not disputed that the amount which have been deposited by the respondent as service tax with the depart ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
