9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 856X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vice' and accordingly charged Service Tax in it's bills, and having collected the same deposited with the Revenue. Then during audit by the Revenue in October, 2009 it was observed that the activity done by the appellant for registered manufacturer of goods (principal manufacturer) is exempted under Notification No. 8/2005, dated 1-3-2005. Thus, no Service Tax was leviable on the activity done by the appellant. Earlier Circular No. 2/91-CX 3, dated 4-1-1991 was issued where the exemption was available to the assessee as a job-worker. In such case, the assessee was at liberty to pay Service Tax. Further the payment made by the appellant cannot be treated as duty/tax, but it would be deemed as deposit with the Government. Further, it was obse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... more than one year prior from the date of claim for refund. Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this appeal before this Tribunal. 3. It is vehemently stated by the appellant that under Section 11B, claim of refund of any duty or tax should be made before expiry of one year from the relevant date. The relevant date in the present case is the date of audit which is 19-10-2009, on which date the claim arose and on 31-10-2009, when Debit Note was issued. The appellant further relied on the ruling in the case of K.V.R. Constructions v. CCE, Bangalore - 2010 (17) S.T.R. 6 (Kar.) where the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka held that refund arising out of Service Tax paid, found not liable to be paid by the impugned order thereunder, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt made in the Section, the ruling of the Hon'ble Apex Court is not applicable in the facts of the present case. Further, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in holding that the appeal is hit by limitation as the appellant has filed refund claim by 2 months' delay from the date of deposit of the tax. Thus, the appeal is allowed and the order of Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside and the Order-in-Original is restored. It is further held that the appellant is entitled to refund of the whole amount of Service Tax paid, disallowed by Revenue audit and claimed back from appellant vide Debit Note dated 31-10-2009, being Rs. (1,03,157 + 98,645) or Rs. 2,01,802/-. 6. Thus, the appeal i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
