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 →

Computer Age Management Services Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, LTU, Chennai

2017 (9) TMI 629 - CESTAT CHENNAI

Refund claim - claim was on the ground that the services rendered by them as registrar to issues and stock transfer agent were liable to tax only w.e.f. 1.5.2006 - appellant case is that the amount was paid due to bonafide mistake and is not governed by provisions of Section 11B - time limitation - Held that: - The admitted facts are that the appellants discharged the amount to the government under the category of service tax and remitted the same during the relevant time in terms of provisions .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

0 - Final Order No. 41983 / 2017 - Dated:- 6-9-2017 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S. Member (Judicial) And Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Shri R. Raghavan, Advocate Shri M. Kannan, Advocate For the Appellant Shri B. Balamurugan, AC (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per B. Ravichandran The appeal is against order dt.26.03.2010 of Commissioner (Appeals), LTU, Chennai. 2. The appellants are registered with service tax department for discharging service tax under various categories. On 05.03.2008, 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

04.06.2008 rejected the said claim both on merit and on limitation. On appeal, vide the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the original order on merit. He observed that as the appellants are not eligible for refund, the consequential question of time bar and unjust enrichment do not arise at all. 2. Ld. counsel for the appellant submitted that they are eligible for refund on merit as well as on limitation. On limitation, he submitted that the amount paid by them during the relevan .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hankar Ramchandra Auctioneers 2010 (19) STR 222 (Tri.-Mumbai) (iii) Jubilant Enterprises P. Ltd. Vs CCE Mumbai-I 2014 (35) STR 430 (Tri.-Mumbai) 3. The Ld. A.R contested the appeal and submitted that the claim is hit by time bar. The department cannot act beyond the legal provisions of Section 11B made applicable to service tax. When the time limit was not adhered to, jurisdictional officer cannot consider the claim at all. In the present case, the claim was rejected by the original authority, b .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d that such case laws cannot be relied upon by the Tribunal while deciding the limitation which should be in terms of the statutory provision. 4. We have heard both sides and perused appeal records. Since there is a strong case regarding limitation in the present appeal, we deem it fit to examine this basic issue. Admittedly, the claim was filed beyond the period of one year as fixed by Section 11B. The appellant also is not disputing this. However, they are claiming that the amount paid by them .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

mount has been paid as service tax and appropriated as part of Consolidated Fund of India by the Government. Any return of such amount should be governed by the legal provision which governs collection of such amount. In the present case, Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1994 made applicable to the provisions of services tax is correctly invocable to determine the limitation. The decisions of the Tribunal relied upon by the appellant will not help his cause. We note that the Hon ble Bombay Hig .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hin the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and therefore, the rule of limitation under Section 11B was applied. That was applied when the application for refund was made invoking Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. We have no manner of doubt that when this was the provision invoked, same applies with full force including the rule of limitation prescribed therein. For these reasons, we are of the opinion that the decisions relied upon cannot be of any assistance." 5. In 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

 

 

 

 

 

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