TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 1487X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 017 (10) TMI 659 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], where the petitioner-appellant therein had filed refund claim beyond the period of one year on noticing that they are not supposed to pay service tax liability, the view of the Tribunal that provision of Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 would be attracted was set aside by Lordships - following the same, the refund allowed in present case also - appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 14 to December 2014 on the ground that they are exempt from payment of service tax as per clause 13(b) of notification No. 25/2012-ST read with clause 29(h) of the same. The appellant has undertaken works contract of construction of waste processing plant and Disposal Facility for Pallavapuram, Tambaram Municipalities. It is undisputed that the activity undertaken by the appellant is excluded from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he view that the issue as to whether limitation prescribed under Section 11B of the said Act applies to a refund claimed in respect of service tax paid under a mistake of law is no longer res integra. The two decisions of the Division Bench of this Court in Hindustan Cocoa (supra) and Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur v. M/s. SGR Infratech Ltd. (supra) are squarely applicable to the facts of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... We are of the view that the decisions relied upon by the Appellate Tribunal do not support the case of the respondent in rejecting the refund claim on the ground that it was barred by limitation. We are, therefore, of the view that the impugned order is unsustainable. 7. We accordingly allow the present appeals and quash and set aside the impugned order, insofar as it is against the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
