TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 185X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oth the lower authorities. This assumes importance especially in the light of the fact that the payment appears to have been made not during investigation, but post Order-in-Original but pending adjudication of the first appeal. Further, the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/S. 3E INFOTECH VERSUS CUSTOMS, EXCISE SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS-I) [ 2018 (7) TMI 276 - MADRAS HIGH COURT ] has categorically held that even when Service Tax was paid under mistake of law, the period of limitation cannot be invoked to deny the refund. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Service Tax Appeal No. 41526 of 2019 - FINAL ORDER NO. 41638 / 2019 - Dated:- 4-12-2019 - MR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the interest, sought for refund of the same vide refund application dated 27.03.2017, etc. 2.2 Ld. Advocate also submitted that the payment towards duty itself was made under protest and therefore, the bar of limitation would not apply. Accordingly, he relied on the following decisions : (i) Crop Chemicals (India) Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Chandigarh 2014 (308) E.L.T. 594 (Tri. Del.); (ii) GS. Radiators Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Ludhiana 2004 (10) T.M.I. 158 CESTAT, New Delhi; (iii) Hutchison Max Telecom Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Mumbai 2004 (1) T.M.I. 114 CESTAT, New Delhi; (iv) Ind. Swift Lands Ltd. Vs. Commr. (2017) 78 taxmann.com 209 (P H). 2.3 He also placed reliance on the follo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l contentions, gone through the documents placed on record and also various decisions relied on by both the sides. 5. On going through the Appeal Memorandum, I find that the appellant has placed on record the Minutes of Board Meeting of the appellant-corporation held on 28.09.2011 wherein the Board had resolved to pay the Service Tax amount under protest. There is nothing on record nor in the pleadings of the appellant that the same was furnished before the lower authorities. Also, the said document has not at all been discussed anywhere in the orders of both the lower authorities. This assumes importance especially in the light of the fact that the payment appears to have been made not during investigation, but post Order-in-Origi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the ground of limitation. The order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 8-11-2006 in having allowed the refund of ₹ 2,15,463/- under Section 11B of the Act was, therefore, perfectly in order and the order of the Tribunal in setting aside the order of the Commissioner dated 1-6-2007 cannot be called in question. Inasmuch as the above conclusions of the Tribunal were made based on relevant considerations of the claim of the respondent/assessee and were based mainly on facts relating to the first respondent-assessee, we do not find any question of law, much less substantial question of law to be entertained in this appeal. We, therefore, do not find any merits to entertain this appeal. The appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No cos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
