9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 231X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt had entered into an agreement with Korea Plant Service & Engineering Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as KPS) for operation and maintenance of power plant. The said KPS was paid a consideration by the appellant for such operation and maintenance of power plant. KPS assessed the service tax liability on their own and discharged the same and have not contested the said service tax liability. On noticing that the agreement entered by the appellant and KPS is a composite contract, appellant filed a refund claim of the amounts paid by them to KPS as service tax in respect of operation of the power plant for the period December 2009 to March 2012, in three different claims. Show cause notices were issued to appellants GMR Energy Vemagi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Larger Bench in the case of Veer Overseas Limited, a majority decision held that the time limit prescribed under section 11B of Central Excise Act 1944 will govern the claims of refund of service tax. It is his submission that the majority view in para 8 has squarely held so. He would further submit that the question of law which was framed and referred to the Larger Bench was of a similar issue wherein refund was claimed of the service tax collected without the authority of law, beyond the statutory time as prescribed under section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944, can be entertained or otherwise and the matter needs to be held in favour of Revenue. He would submit that similar issue came up before the Tribunal in the case of Southern Ro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue involved in this case is already decided in the appellant's own case by final order dated. 25.04.2018. On that day, when the matter was heard, judgment of Larger Bench was not pronounced and now the reliance is placed on judgment of Larger Bench in the case of Veer Overseas vs. CCE, Panchkula [2018-TIOL-1432-CESTAT-LB)] to put forth the arguments on behalf of revenue that provisions of Section 11-B as regards the time for filing the refund claims needs to be followed by the Bench. 8. It is to be noticed that in a similar issue in respect of appellant's own case, view has been taken by the Bench (wherein one of us Shri M.V. Ravindran was also a Member) relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Parijat Const ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hri Vallabh Glass Works Ltd. V. Union of India, this Court, while examining the question as to what is the point of time from which the limitation should be deemed to commence observed that relief in respect of payments made beyond the period of three years may not be granted from the date of filing of the petition, taking into consideration the date when the mistake came to be known to the party concerned. Just as an assessee cannot be permitted to evade payment of rightful tax, the authority which recovers tax without any authority of law cannot be permitted to retain the amount, merely because the tax payer was not aware at that time that the recovery being made was without any authority of law. In such cases, there is an obligation on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
