Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Home Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles News Highlights
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Kiran Sharadchandra Karnik Versus Commissioner of Service Tax-Ahmedabad

2015 (9) TMI 1031 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD

Denial of refund claim - payment of service tax which was not leviable - Bar of limitation - Unjust enrichment - held that:- Sanctioning of the amount of ₹ 76,400/- indicate that the issue of unjust enrichment and non chargeability of Service Tax on the activities of the appellants are not questioned by the Revenue. The only aspect which is required to be decided is whether limitations for filing refund claim, specified in Section 11-B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 will be applicable to .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

in favour of assessee. - Appeal No : ST/10002-10007/2014 - Order No. A/10340-10345/2015 - Dated:- 17-4-2015 - Mr. H.K. Thakur, J. For The Appellant : Shri M.R. Shah, Tax Counsultant For The Respondent:Shri S.K. Shukla, Authorised Representative Per: H.K. Thakur These appeals have been filed by the appellant with respect to OIA No. AHM-SVTAX-000-APP-241 to 245-13-14 dated 19.11.2013 and AHM-SVTX-000-APP-228-13-14 dated 06.11.2013. 2. Shri M.R. Shah (Tax Consultant) appearing on behalf of the appe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

le in view of, interalia, the following case laws:- (i) Swastik Sanitary Wares Ltd. vs. UOI - [2012 (37) STT 508 (27) Taxman. Com. 12 (Gujarat)] (ii) Commissioner of Central Excise, Banglore-III vs. Motorola India Pvt. Ltd. - [2008 (11) S.T.R. 555 (Kar.)] (iii) Gujarat Enginneering Works vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Ahmedabad-II - [ 2013 (292) E.L.T 547 (Tri. Ahmd.)] (iv) Natraj and Venkat Associates vs. Asst. Commr. of S.T., Chennai-II [2010 (17) S.T.R. (mad.)] 3. Shri S.K. Shukla (AR) ap .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

as time barred as per the orders of the first appellate authority. Sanctioning of the amount of ₹ 76,400/- indicate that the issue of unjust enrichment and non chargeability of Service Tax on the activities of the appellants are not questioned by the Revenue. The only aspect which is required to be decided is whether limitations for filing refund claim, specified in Section 11-B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 will be applicable to the amounts paid under mistaken belief that Service Tax on .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

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


|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

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

Go to Mobile Version