9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (1) TMI 273X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. In the wake of Finance Act, 2000 enacting provisions to recover service tax on Goods Transport Operator (GTO) service from the availers of the service retrospectively, notice dated 28.6.2002 was issued to M/s. Wardex Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. proposing to demand service tax of Rs.2,15,463/- on GTO service availed by them during the period 16.11.1997 to 1.6.98 along with interest till the date of payment of the service tax due. It was also proposed to impose penalties on the appellants. Following the enactment of Finance Act, 2003, inter alia, amending retrospectively Notification No.43/97-ST dated 5.11.1997, the appellants were addressed by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax requesting t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amended. He held that the claim of the appellants was not hit by limitation. As the assessee had paid service tax on 12.11.2003 for freight incurred in 97-98, he found that the bar of unjust enrichment also did not apply to the claim. Accordingly, he allowed the refund of Rs.2,12,463/- vide his Order-in-Original No.94/06 (Refund) dated 8.11.2006. 3. In the impugned order, revising the order of the original authority, the Commissioner of Service tax found that the assessee had paid the service tax on 12.11.03 and the relevant date for filing refund claim in respect of the said amount was on or before 11.11.04. Therefore, the refund claim filed by the appellants on 18.8.2006 was hit by time bar. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er ordering recovery of the refund sanctioned was on the sole ground that the original authority had sanctioned time barred refund claim. 6. Ld. Counsel cited the following decisions of the Tribunal in support of the argument that the limitation did not apply to their claim. (i) CCE, Chennai-III Vs. Rane Engine Valves Ltd. 2003 (162) ELT 417 (Tri. Chennai) (ii) CCE, Raipur Vs. Indian Ispat Works (P) Ltd 2006 (3) STR 161 (Tri. Del) 7. Ld. SDR submits that in terms of Section 11 AB a claim for refund made on a date beyond a period of one year of payment of duty was barred by limitation. In the instant case, the assessee had claimed refund of the tax paid more ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unt deposited by the appellants during adjudication proceedings had to be treated as deposit and not duty. It was ordered that payment under protest or doctrine of Unjust Enrichment did not apply to such payment. The Tribunal ordered refund of the amount deposited by the party and claimed more than a year later. Hence the ratio of this decision clearly supports the claim of the appellants in the instant case. 10. In CCE, Raipur Vs. Indian Ispat Works (P) Ltd (supra) the facts of the case were that the appellants t therein, a SSI unit eligible for exemption as per Notification No.43/97-ST owing to its retrospective amendment, had claimed refund of tax paid on GTO service during the period 16.7.97 to 16.10.98. Part o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
