9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 659X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... short "Appellate Tribunal") by which the Orders-in-Appeal Nos. AKP/104/NSK/2009 and AKP/104/NSK/2009, both dated 18th November 2009 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) of Central Excise and Customs, Nashik were upheld. For the sake of convenience, we are referring to the facts in Appeal No. 306 of 2016. 2. The Appellant is engaged in providing "Commercial or Industrial Construction" service and are registered as a service provider under that category. The Appellant had during the period May 2006 to November 2007 secured a contract from Mumbai Educational Trust for construction of administration and Core Course building. The Appellant being under the bonafide belief that the transaction attracts service tax paid the same without collectin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re upheld. The Appellant filed Appeal before the Appellate Tribunal challenging the said order of the Commissioner (Appeals). By the impugned order dated 5th May 2016, the Appellate Tribunal dismissed the Appeal filed by the Appellant. Hence the present Appeal has been filed. 3. Mr. Raichandani, learned counsel for the Appellant has submitted that Section 11 B of the Central Excise Act which prescribes the time period of one year for filing a refund claim is inapplicable in the case of refund for service tax which was paid under mistake of law. Mr. Raichandani has further submitted that the Appellate Tribunal has erroneously applied Section 11 B of the said Act in the present case where admittedly the Appellant had paid service tax on comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cases where duty was paid under the mistake of law. In the present case where admittedly the Appellant had paid service tax on Commercial or Industrial Construction Service although such services were not liable to service tax. 4. Mr. Dwivedi learned counsel for the Respondent has supported the impugned order. Mr. Dwivedi contended that limitation prescribed under Section 11 B under the said Act is applicable to all refund claims and since the refund claims of the Appellant was filed beyond one year from the date of payment of service tax, the refund claim was correctly held by the Appellate Tribunal to be hit by limitation. 5. We are of the view that the issue as to whether limitation prescribed under Section 11 B of the said Act applie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
