TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 1106X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mstances of this case and moreover the judgment of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CCE Vs KVR Constructions [2012 (7) TMI 22 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] was held to be not a good law by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in subsequent decision in the case of MCI Leasing Pvt Ltd [2011 (9) TMI 447 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT]. - Period of limitation of one year is applicable - Decided against the assessee. - ST/443/2012 - Final Order No. 20473/2016 - Dated:- 23-6-2016 - SHRI S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Mr. Cherian Punnoose, Adv, For the Appellant Mr. N. Jagadish, A.R., For the Respondent ORDER Per : S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) Mangalore rejecting the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sioner and hence the present appeal. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the activities provided by the appellant became taxable only with effect from 01.07.2010 and not taxable prior to that date, whereas the period involved in this case is March 2007 to February 2009. He also submitted that vide Finance Act 2010, the said taxable service was amended and an explanation was inserted with effect from 01.07.2010 to bring within the purview the sale transaction carried out by the builders. Further the Board vide circular dated 01.02.2012 has clarified that construction activities provided by the builder/developer for the period prior to 01.07.2010 were not taxable. Learned counsel further submitted that the appellants we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R 430(Tri-Mum)] vi) CCE Pune-III Vs Shankar Ramchandra Auctioneers [2010(19)STR 222(Tri-Mum)] 5. On the other hand learned A.R. submitted that the refund of ₹ 5,27,265/- was rightly rejected as time barred as the refund claim was filed on 11.1.2010 pertaining to the period between March 2007 to February 2009. Except for the refund of February 2009, the entire refund is time barred. He further submitted with regard to rejection of refund of ₹ 25,733/- that he same was rejected on account of non-production of documents. He also submitted that there is only one provision under the Central Excise Act which is also applicable to refund of service tax contained in Section 11B of the Central Excise Act 1944 for claiming refund ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal, suit or writ petition. Statutory time limit is not extendable by any authority or Court in case of illegal levy. Similarly the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of M/s MCI Leasing (P) Ltd (supra) has held that time limit under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act 1944 is applicable even in cases of payment of service tax due to mistake of law. Further this Tribunal in the case of XL Telecom Ltd (supra) has held that even in respect of illegal levy, refund claim has to be filed within the time limit prescribed under the Central Excise Act 1944. The judgments relied upon by the counsel for the appellant is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case and moreover the judgment of the Hon ble Karnataka High Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
