Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Hardesh Ores Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Goa

2015 (9) TMI 993 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Refund of service tax - Business Auxiliary Services - Unjust enrichment - Held that:- Appellant has not charged any service tax separately but when the revenue authorities directed them to pay service tax under the category of ‘Business Auxiliary Service', it is seen that the appellant had discharged service tax liability considering the amount recovered from their customers as cum-tax amount and worked out the service tax liability. - There being no dispute as to the fact that the service tax l .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Mathew, Member (T), JJ. For the Appellant : Shri T C Nair, Adv For the Respondent : Shri K S Mishra, Additional Commissioner (AR) ORDER Per: M V Ravindran: This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. CEX/GOA/VSK/08/2010 dated 22/01/2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Goa. 2. The relevant facts that arose for consideration are that the appellant here filed an application for refund of an amount of ₹ 4,20,49,912/- on the ground that the said amo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

show cause as to why this refund claim be not rejected. 2.1 Appellant contended show cause notice before that adjudicating authority on merits. The adjudicating authority rejected the contentions of the appellant and held that the refund claim as filed by the appellant is liable to be rejected on the ground that the said claim being filed beyond the period of limitation in respect of few claims and the claim is hit by unjust enrichment and service tax liability has been correctly paid under Busi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

y is not payable under Business Auxiliary Services' prior to 01/06/2007, as recorded by the first appellate authority and Revenue is not in appeal against such an order. It is his submission that when the authorities are accepting that the tax is not payable, then such amount should be refunded to the appellant as it has been withheld by the department without authority of law. It is his submission that for this proposition he would rely upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Karnata .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

appellant as service tax was not collected from their customers; that Chartered Accountant's certificate has been issued after going through the entire account of the appellant. He would submit that for this proposition, he relies upon the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Guntur vs. Crane Betel Nut Powder Works 2011 (274) ELT 113 (Tri-Bang). It is his submission that the ratio of this judgment will apply in the case in hand, and that this .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

umed that the appellant has collected the service tax amount from their customers. 4. Learned Departmental Representative reiterated the findings of the first appellate authority and submits that the appellant has not been able to demonstrate that they have not recovered the amount of service tax from their customers. It is submitted that, for the period 01/06/2007 onwards there is no dispute but the dispute is for the period prior to 01/06/2007 wherein the appellant themselves have paid the ser .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

it transpires that the issue relates to the refund of service tax paid by the appellant during the period June 2005 to March 2007 under the category of Business Auxiliary Services'. 6. It is undisputed that the appellant is engaged in the extraction of iron ore and that the said category is a service covered under Mining of Mineral services' and is taxable from 01/06/2007. It is also undisputed that for the period in question, the appellant have discharged the service tax under Business .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

at the appellant had raised the bill on their customers which indicated that the same is for extraction of iron ore for the period in question. The said bill does not indicate any tax liability charged by the appellant. We reproduce below one specimen bill: 8. It can be seen from the above reproduced bill that the appellant has not charged any service tax separately but when the revenue authorities directed them to pay service tax under the category of Business Auxiliary Service', it is seen .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version