TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 205X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd. (2009 (7) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT). Also see Vidyut Metallics Pvt. Ltd [2012 (11) TMI 376 - CESTAT, MUMBAI]. Thus as the appellants had admitted their service tax liability by not claiming the refund of the same and also taken the credit of the same, therefore interest on delayed payment is payable by the appellant. Accordingly, the refund claim is not maintainable. - ST/120/2010-Mum - A/382/2012-WZB/C-I(CSTB) - Dated:- 5-6-2012 - S/Shri Ashok Jindal, P.R. Chandrasekharan, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri Bharat Raichandani, Advocate, for the Appellant. Ms. D.M. Durando, Dy. Commissioner (AR), for the Respondent. [Order per : Ashok Jindal, Member (J)]. The appellant is in appeal against the order of denial of refund ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation v. Union of India (supra) the Hon ble High Court of Bombay has held that the service tax is not leviable under Rule 2(l)(d)(iv) of Service Tax Rules, 1994 as the service has been provided by their service provider who is located outside India prior to 18-4-2006 when enactment of Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994, was introduced. Therefore, prior to 18-4-2006, the appellants were not liable to pay the service tax, consequently are not liable to pay interest also. As the said issue of liability was settled by the Hon ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Indian National Ship Owners Association v. Union of India (supra) which was confirmed by the Hon ble Supreme Court, therefore, the appellants are entitled for refund of the service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rest as held by the Hon ble Apex Court in the case CCE v. SKF India Ltd. - 2009 (239) E.L.T. 385 (S.C.). In the case of Vidyut Metallics Pvt. Ltd vide Order No. A/15/12/SMB/C-IV dated 10-2-2012, this Tribunal observed that the appellant has admitted their duty liability and paid thereof, therefore as per the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case SKF India Ltd. (supra), the interest is payable. 7. In view of these observations, we hold that as the appellants had admitted their service tax liability by not claiming the refund of the same and also taken the credit of the same, therefore interest on delayed payment is payable by the appellant. Accordingly, the refund claim is not maintainable. 8. In view of these findings, the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
