TMI Blog2006 (2) TMI 633X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against order- in-appeal dated 24-5-2004, wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the refund claim rejected by Order in Originals. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the respondents had availed the Service of the Goods Transport Operators for the period 16-7-97 to 16-10-98. The appellants were Small Scale Industries and deposited the Service Tax on the insistance and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be sanctioned to the respondent. Hence this appeal. 3. The learned Department Representative submits that the Respondent have paid the amount as Service Tax and are hence required to file the refund claim within the time period as provided in the statute. He relies upon the following Case Laws :- (i) Miles India Ltd, Baroda v. Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay - 1983 (13) E.L.T. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re not required to pay the amount, as tax, for the whole period i.e. from 16-7-97 to 16-10-98. The department has allowed the claim of the respondents for the period 16-11-97 to 1-6-98, but rejected the refund claim for the previous period and subsequent period as time barred. The rejection of the claim of refund is wrong as it can be seen from the records, that the amount paid by the respondents ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e eligible for refund. The case laws relied upon by the learned DR, discuss about the refund claim of the amount of paid as duty and do not address to the issue of amount not payable as Tax. Hence they are not relevant for the issue in this case. 6. Under the circumstances, I do not see any reason to interfere with the order-in-appeal dated 24-5-2004. The departments appeal is dismissed. (Pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
