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 →

Mangam Construction Company Versus Commissioner of Service Tax Bangalore-Service Tax

2015 (11) TMI 343 - CESTAT BANGALORE

Denial of refund claim - Construction Services - Unjust enrichment - Held that:- there is no basis to remand the case back either to the original adjudicating authority or to the Commissioner (Appeals) when the Hon’ble High Court of Madras [2015 (3) TMI 735 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] has clearly held that the deposits made during investigation or adjudication proceedings of the department are in the nature of deposits made under protest and the principle of unjust enrichment is not applicable to the s .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

liable for service tax since 01.07.2010 as per decision of the Tribunal Delhi Bench in Krishna Homes Vs. CCE, Bhopal. 2. Initially by the order-in-original the appellant was sanctioned the refund of ₹ 20,41,771/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Forty One Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy One only) which was not paid to the appellants citing the reason of unjust enrichment and the said sanctioned amount was credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund as per the provisions of Section 11B(2) of Central Excis .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

dication Order No. 26/2010 dated 11.06.2010, submitted by the learned advocate of the appellant, Mr. B.G. Chidananda. 5. The appellant pleaded that they collected the service tax amount of ₹ 3,28,738/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Twenty Eight Thousand Seven Hundred and Thirty Eight only) from their customers and paid the same accordingly to the exchequer and this amount they are not claiming as refund as they are not entitled to the same. 6. The learned advocate Shri. B.G. Chidananda appearing for .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

There is no dispute with regard to the proposition of law as laid down by the Supreme Court. In the present case, as is evident from the records, it is not a case of refund of duty. It is a pre-deposit made under protest at the time of investigation, as has been recorded in the original proceedings itself. In this regard, it has to be noticed it has been the consistent view taken by the Courts that any amount, that is deposited during the pendency of adjudication proceedings or investigation is .....

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