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 →

M/s Venkatarama Oil Industries Pvt Ltd. Versus CCE, C&ST, Visakhapatnam-I

2017 (9) TMI 889 - CESTAT HYDERABAD

Refund claim - reverse charge mechanism - whether the appellant is eligible for the refund of an amount along with interest paid by him on 31.03.2004 under reverse charge mechanism for the services rendered from goods transported for the period 16.11.1997 to 02.06.1998? - Held that: - since there is a retrospective amendment by Finance Act, 2003, tax liability which has been paid by the appellant is correctly done so and appropriated by the adjudicating authority and as well as first appellate a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

submission by a letter dated 23.02.2017 which is taken on record and considered along with grounds of appeal. 3. The issue in short that falls for consideration is whether the appellant is eligible for the refund of an amount along with interest paid by him on 31.03.2004 under reverse charge mechanism for the services rendered from goods transported for the period 16.11.1997 to 02.06.1998. 4. The claim of the appellant is that his amount which has been discharged as service tax liability under .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

dment by Finance Act, 2003, tax liability which has been paid by the appellant is correctly done so and appropriated by the adjudicating authority and as well as first appellate authority and hence the question of refund does not arise Retrospective Amendment being constitutionally followed has been decided by the Apex Court in the case of M/s Gujarat Ambuja Cement [2005 (182) ELT 33 (SC)]. 6. On consideration of the submissions made, I find that the appeal has no merits. I find that the adjudic .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rt Operators during the period 16/11/1997 to 2/6/1998 is legally correct or not. MY findings are as follows. Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the year 1999 in M/s Laghu Udyog Bhrati Vs Union of India case has struck down the rule of making the recipient of service liable to pay service tax as Ultra Vires the Act and ordered for refund of taxes paid on the subject service during the relevant period. Appellants did not pay any service tax during the period for which it is taxable and hence this issue .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n 68(1), 71 and Section 94 of the Finance Act, 1994 were further amended, which reads as follows. Section 158 provides………… It is exactly in the context of 2003 amendments only the JAC has given a Ietter and the appellants have calculated the tax liability for the period 16/11/97 to 2/6/1998; have calculated the interest for the period immediately after 6 months of the enactment of the bill Oil 14/5/2003 i.e. 13/11/2003 to the date of payment i.e. 31/3/2004; paid the 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

 

 

 

 

 

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