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 →

Universal Industrial Services Versus Commissioner of Service Tax Bangalore Service Tax-I

2017 (8) TMI 471 - CESTAT BANGALORE

Refund claim - service tax paid erroneously - rejection on the ground of time limitation - Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - appellant case is non-applicability of time limit in cases of payment in respect of non-taxable service - Held that: - the time limit under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is applicable even in cases of payment of service tax paid due to mistake of law - the refund claim is filed beyond the period of limitation as provided under Section 11B of the C .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

facts of the present case are that the appellant is a partnership firm engaged in rendering services under the category of Business Auxiliary Service and also engaged in power coating service to its client M/s. Digvijaya Plastics and Allied Products Pvt. Ltd. Appellant in their course of business collected the service tax from their client and remitted to the Department. Appellant had collected and paid service tax on the job work done by them i.e., painting of automobile parts supplied by the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hem erroneously and hence they are eligible for the refund, which was rejected by the original authority, on the ground of time bar under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant challenged the same inter alia on the ground of non-applicability of time limit in cases of payment in respect of non-taxable service. The Commissioner (A) after considering the submissions of the appellant rejected the appeal of the appellant and hence, 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

ervice tax to the Department and there is no unjust enrichment also. He further submitted that service tax was paid to the Department under a mistake of law and the collection of service tax by the department was without authority of law and therefore, the appellant is entitled to refund the same and provisions of limitation as provided in Section 11B of the Central Excise Act cannot be invoked. In support of his submission, he relied upon the following decisions: KVR Constructions Vs. CCE: 2010 .....

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