TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 953X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt date, stands rightly rejected by the lower authorities as bared by limitation - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - APPEAL No.ST/70741/2016-CU[DB] - FINAL ORDER NO-70173/2019 - Dated:- 29-1-2019 - Smt. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Shri Dharmendra Srivastava, Chartered Accountant for Appellant Shri Gyanendra Tripathi, Assistant Commissioner (AR), for Respondent ORDER Per: Archana Wadhwa As per facts on record, the appellant is engaged in providing Commercial Training to the various eligible candidates. As per the revenue the activities undertaken by them were liable to service tax under the category of Commercial Training or Coaching Servic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble High Court. 3. Revenue, being of the view that such refund claim filed by the appellant claiming refund of service tax for the period subsequent to the earlier order of the Commissioner, was barred by limitation, inasmuch as the same stands filed after a period of one year from the relevant date prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, which stands made applicable to the provisions of service tax. Accordingly, the appellant was issued with a show cause notice proposing denial of the said refund claim on the point of limitation as also on unjust-enrichment. The Original Adjudicating Authority denied the claim as barred by limitation, which stands upheld by Commissioner (Appeals). Hence, the present appeal by the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid order will be limited to refund of Service Tax covered by the said order. The appellant has filed refund claim of Service Tax deposited during the year 2012 against the tax liability pertaining to the period December, 2009 to October, 2012 on 22.04.2014. Thus, the refund claim of Service Tax which is neither covered by the said order of High Court nor been paid under protest has been filed after stipulated period of one year from the date of payment of tax in the year 2012. It has also come to the notice that the department has filed SLP before the Supreme Court against the said order of High Court and issued notices for demand of Service Tax for the subsequent period and decision is pending till date. Therefore, in the situation, I am ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and proceedings. The same has to be independently adjudged in the light of Section 11-B. As provided in terms of Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1994 the relevant date is the date of payment of duty and the refunds, if any, are required to be filed within a period of one year from the relevant date. It is not the appellant s case that subsequent to arising of dispute with the revenue they started paying duty under protest or adhered to provisional assessment. It was open to the appellant to pay duty under protest, by following the procedure prescribed for the same, in which case upon the success of their earlier matter, the tax paid for the subsequent period would become refundable to them, inasmuch as, there is no limitation for refund ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
