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. Kerala Venture Capital Funds (Pvt.) Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise (Adjudication) , The Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellant Tribunal

2016 (4) TMI 940 - KERALA HIGH COURT

Refund of Service tax paid in excess - Banking and Financial Services - Unjust enrichment - production of certificate of Chartered Accountant showing that excess amount collected had been refunded on 31.03.2004 and 27.10.2004 respectively - Held that:- the evidence produced by the appellant before the appellate authority should be considered by the original authority. Annexure D,E and F orders are set aside and the matter is remanded to the original authority to consider in the light of the mate .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

.2007. Appellant is a service provider under the category "Banking and Financial Services". It had received an amount of ₹ 40,00,000/- as management fee in advance during the year 2003-2004 in terms of an agreement entered with the Kerala Venture Capital Fund. Service tax at 5% of the management fee was paid in advance by the appellant. Before the conclusion of the financial year, the appellant entered into supplementary agreement with Kerala Venture Capital Fund to the effect th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

that though service tax was paid in excess, the appellant is not entitled for refund on the ground of unjust enrichment and directed the refund to be sanctioned and credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund in terms of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It was held that the appellant had not produced any evidence to show that they had not passed on the tax burden to the recipient of service that is, Kerala Venture Capital Fund. The appeal by the petitioner before the first appellate author .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t had not been passed on to such recipient had been produced by the writ petitioner before the first appellate authority. However, the first appeal was rejected stating that the refund to the service provider had been made only on 27.10.2004, though show cause notice was issued on 27.07.2004 and original order was dated 23.09.2004. On the ground of delay in refunding the service tax collected, the appeal was rejected. 4. The appellant had taken a specific ground before the CESTAT that the servic .....

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