2018 (4) TMI 668

w on the various services rendered by them as per Notification No. 12/2012, I find that the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Parijat Construction [2017 (10) TMI 659 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] will apply in full force, where it was held the Division Bench of this Court in Hindustan Cocoa [1994 (6) TMI 18 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY] has held that the limitation prescri .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

by mistake. The adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim on the question of limitation and the first appellate authority has overturned the said order-in-original by referring and relying upon various decisions of the higher judicial forum. 4. Learned Authorised Representative submits that the refund claim has arisen out of the tax paid by the appellant on his own volition under the works .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

ashik 2017-TIOL-2170-HC-MUM-ST and in the case of In House Productions Ltd v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai 2017-TIOL-1242-HC-MUM-CX has held that when service tax is paid under mistake of law, the question of limitation or the time-bar as provided under Section 11B does not arise. In the entire proceedings, before the lower authorities as well as before the Tribunal, I find that the Revenue .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

ppellant had filed a claim for refund of the amount paid as service tax by making an application under Section 11B of CEA, which was rejected as time barred and also on the ground of unjust enrichment as per Section I ID of the CEA. In this regard, primarily, I find that the Respondent has not disputed the eligibility of the benefit of Notification No. 12/2012-ST dated 17.3.2012 and 25/2012-ST dat .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X