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

M/s. Schenck Rotec India Ltd. Versus C.C.E., Noida

2016 (2) TMI 812 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Claim of refund of interest on service tax demand paid earlier - period of limitation to claim interest - Held that:- since the appellant for the first time had filed the application, claiming refund of interest paid vide its letter dated 15.09.2010, paid during the period 18.12.2008 to 29.04.2009, in my opinion, the same is barred by limitation of time, being filed beyond the period of one year from the relevant date. Further there is no document available on record to prove that the interest a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is registered with the Service Tax Department for providing taxable service, namely, Business Auxiliary Service (BAS). The appellant connects the Indian clients/buyers to foreign suppliers for direct supply of goods to them and for providing the said service, the appellant receives commission in foreign currency. Pursuant to the letter dated 15.07.2008 from the jurisdictional range Superintendent, the appellant had deposited the service tax of & .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ppellant. However, the refund claim filed by the appellant for the interest amount of ₹ 10,24,535/- was rejected by the Department vide order dated 02.06.2011 on the ground of limitation, since the refund claim application was not filed within one year from the relevant date. In appeal, ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeal of the appellant by upholding the adjudication order. The rejection of refund claim for the interest amount is the subject matter of the present dispute in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ocate further submitted that since the amount in question was deposited under the direction of the Department, the same should be refunded without insisting for a formal refund application and for refund of such amount, the time limit prescribed in central excise statute shall not be applicable. 4. On the other hand, Shri RK Mishra, ld. Departmental Representative appearing for the Revenue submitted that the interest amount was paid by the appellant on different dates between the period 18.12.20 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| 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