9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 612X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Representative for the Respondent ORDER Present appeal has been filed to assail the Order-in-Appeal No.37/2021 dated 29.10.2021 vide which the order of rejection of refund claim filed by the appellant, on the ground of limitations, has been upheld. 2. The relevant facts in brief are as follows:- That the appellants are involved in providing taxable services on 04.03.2015. The appellants claime ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e heard Mr. N.K. Gupta, ld. Counsel for the appellant and Ms.Tamanna Alam, ld. Authorized Representative for the Revenue. 4. It is submitted by the ld. Counsel for the appellant that the amount deposited was not the amount of tax or duty though was deposited under the nomenclature of it being service tax, but actually the amount of Rs.2,83,505/- was later found to be in excess of the liability of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he law being settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India reported in 1997 (89) ELT 247. Impressing upon no infirmity in the order, the appeal is prayed to be dismissed. 6. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the record, it is observed that there is no denial on part of the Department about claim of appellant that the amount of Rs.2,83,505/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cribed and the application shall be accompanied by such documentary or other evidence (including the documents referred to in section 12A) as the applicant may furnish to establish that the amount of duty of excise and interest, if any, paid on such duty in relation to which such refund is claimed was collected from, or paid by, him and the incidence of such duty and interest, if any, paid on such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laim refunds on the ground that they paid the tax under a mistake of law. This is because such claims are outside the ambit of the Excise Act. The limitation of section will not be applicable. 8. Keeping in view the same, it is held that Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly applied the obiter-dicta of Mafatlal Industries (supra) case. Refund accordingly is held to have been wrongly rejected. Order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
