UNI DERITEND LIMITED Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against Order -in -appeal dt. 22.3.2006, which upheld the order -in -original, that rejected the refund claim of the appellant.

(2.) THE relevant fact that arise for consideration are the appellant was receiver of services rendered by Goods Transport Operators during the period 16.11.1997 to 2.6.1998. The appellant paid the service tax of Rs. 1,01,751/ - (Rupees one lakh one thousand seven hundred fifty one only) for such services received. Subsequently, appellant filed the refund claim of service tax paid, on the ground that it was paid wrongly and was not payable. The adjudicating authority rejected the said refund claim after issuing the show cause notice to the appellant. The appellant carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who vide his order dt. 22.3.2006 did not agree with the contentions of the appellant and rejected the appeal and upheld the order. Hence this appeal by the appellant.

(3.) THE representative of the appellant argues that the issue involved in this case is to be considered from a different angles. It is his submission that the appellant paid service tax based upon a Trade Notice issued by the Commissioner. It is the submission that the appellant paid duty "under protest" and hence he has right to claim the refund of the amount so wrongly paid. Alternately, the appellant submits that the issue of payment of service tax could have arisen only, if the provisions were during the relevant period. It is the submission that the provisions of Section 68 were for the payment of service tax by the service provider and could not be used service receiver. It is also his submission that the retrospective amendment which was carried out by Finance Act, Subsequently, did not alter the situation and the appellant is not liable to pay service tax during the relevant period. It also submitted that the issue involved in this case is covered by the judgment of the division Bench in the case of Sunrise Structural and Engg. Ltd. and Ors. v. CCE, Nagpur 2004 (117) ELT 307 (Tri.Mumbai) and by the case of Laghu Udyog Bharati and Anr. v. UOI and Ors. Reported in 1999 (XC2) -GJX 3396 -SC. It was also his submission that the appellants could not be put at disadvantageous situation having paid the amount on their own.