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 →

Jubilant Enpro Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Service Tax-II, Mumbai

2016 (11) TMI 835 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Refund - Business Support Services - unjust enrichment - Held that: - the Ld. Counsel has taken me to various documents such as trial balance, annual report for 2006-07 & 2007-08 and schedule thereof wherefrom it is clearly observed that the amount of service tax paid in excess has been shown as ‘receivable’ under the head of ‘Loans and Advances - In my view, this is more than sufficient to show that incidence of excess paid service tax was not passed on to any other person - Decided in favor 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

ding Business Support Services. The appellant had filed a refund claim in respect of service tax of ₹ 1,49,451/- paid in excess during the period from October, 2006 to March, 2007. The adjudicating authority sanctioned refund claim for ₹ 64,220/-, but transferred this amount to Consumer Welfare Fund under Section 11B(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Remaining part of the refund i.e. ₹ 85,231/- was rejected on the ground that this relates to Cenvat Credit availed before obtai .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

service as per Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellant is before me. 3. Shri Nand Kishore, Ld. Counsel with Ms. Fatima Barodawalla, Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellant. He submits that as regard the unjust enrichment, the original authority transferred sanctioned refund to Consumer Welfare Fund on the ground that the C.A. Certificate of the appellant does not mention that the incidence of service tax was not passed on to any other person. H .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

007-08, the subject amount was clearly declared as receivable under the head of Loans and Advances . He also submits that the appellant though mistakenly charged excess value and corresponding service tax but for the said amounts, credit note was issued, accordingly the excess paid service tax was not recovered from the service recipient. Thus, for this reason also, it is established the incidence of excess paid service tax was not passed on to any other person. 4. Shri V. Kaushik, Ld. Assistant .....

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