TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 402X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... “the date of payment of duty”. Since the payment of service tax during the said period was not under protest, the Appellant was unable to take advantage of the second proviso under Section 11B (1) of the CE Act which states that the limitation of one year will not apply where any duty and interest has been paid under protest. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant-assessee. - SERTA 4/2017 - - - Dated:- 8-8-2017 - S. Muralidhar And Prathiba M. Singh, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Ashok Kumar Dhingra, Ms. Smita Singh, Advocates For the Respondents : Mr. Sanjeev Narula, Senior Standing Counsel for Department with Mr. Abhishek Ghai, Advocate ORDER Dr. S. Muralidhar,J.: 1. This appeal under Section 35 G (1) o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ces for the aforementioned period were realised in the subsequent period. It is accordingly averred that the Petitioner paid excess amount for the Relevant Period equivalent to difference between amount paid on billed amount and Service Tax payable on realised amount for services during the Relevant Period. 5. The appellant filed a refund application on 25th September, 2007 before the Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax, Division-I, New Delhi ( Assistant Commissioner ) for refund of the excess amount of ₹ 14,92,703/- paid as service tax during the aforementioned period. The said application came to be disposed of by the Assistant Commissioner by an order dated 28th July, 2008, inter alia, allowing the refund of ₹ 10,69,24 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o Industries Limited (supra) and Alar Impex Private Limited (supra), the question examined was whether the levy in question, which was cess in one case (Hind Agro) and service tax in the other (Alar Impex), was at all payable in the first instance. As far as the levy of cess is concerned, this Court in Hind Agro Industries Limited (supra) held that it was outside the purview of 'customs duty' under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. In Alar Impex Private Limited (supra), this Court found that the CESTAT had failed to satisfy itself that the services rendered by the appellant were, on facts, amenable to service tax . Where the services rendered were not amenable to service tax, the question of applying for refund under Section 11B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
