Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (11) TMI 195 - CESTAT MUMBAI

2016 (11) TMI 195 - CESTAT MUMBAI - TMI - Rejection of refund claim - contract with ONGC for execution of job under MSP Platform project and said job is based on turn-key basis - turn-key and work contract - limitation bar - Held that: - the appellant had deposited the amount in the month of March 2005, May 2005, September 05 and November 2005. As regards the amount deposited by the appellant as service tax liability, nothing is brought on record that the said amounts were deposited by them on t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nd that the said contract is lump-sum contract. The service tax liability paid by the appellant is calculated by working back from the lumpsum contracted amount. In short the appellant had received an amount as per contract nothing more and nothing less. When the appellant himself has calculated the tax liability from the amount received from ONGC by working backwards, it cannot be now said that they have not collected the amount of service tax from ONGC; especially when there is no dispute that .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r. Devender Singh, Member (Technical) Shri V. Rama Rao, Advocate for appellant Shri Roopam Kapoor, Commr (AR) for respondent ORDER These two appeals are directed against orders-in-appeal Nos. YDB/24/M-II/2010 dated 13.01.2010 and 3/ST-II/KKS/2010 dated 09.02.2011. 2. Since these appeals are filed by the very same assessee and the issue also same, they are being disposed of by a common order. 3. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are the appellant herein had filed four refund claims .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

which they mistakenly paid the service tax liability i.e. appellant entered into a contract with ONGC for execution of job under MSP Platform project and said job is based on turn-key basis. The said contract according to the appellant was turn-key and work contract could not be vivisected for each activity and service tax liability will not arise. Coming to such a decision the appellant filed a refund claim of the amount paid as indicated herein above. The adjudicating authority after followin .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he contract entered with ONGC. It is his submission that the contract with the ONGC was turn-key project and was covered under works contract services . He would submit that now the law is settled as to the service tax liability on the works contract services would not be leviable prior to 01.06.2007. He would submit that appellant had paid service tax liability by vivisecting services relating to Erection, Commissioning or Installation falling within works contract Services . He would submit 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

egarding refund of service tax paid during March 2005 to Nov 2005. It is undisputed that the appellant had filed refund application on 21.06.2006 claiming that the service tax paid by them under TR-6 challan during the period in question is not payable. We find that the contentions raised by the learned Counsel during the course of argument has also taken in the grounds of appeal are liable to be rejected for more than one reason. 6.1 Firstly, we find that the appellant had deposited the amount .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

liability. 6.2 Secondly, we find that the service tax paid by the appellant in the month of March 2005 and May 2005 are hit by limitation as the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 are adopted for the purposes of refund of service tax under the Finance Act, 1994. The provisions of Section 11B are very clear in as much if an amount has paid under protest there is no limitation, if it is not so, the period of limitation is one year from the relevant date which in this case i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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