9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 767X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant intimated the department after three days that the deposit made is in the nature of advance, under Rule 6 (1A) of the Service Tax Rules. Thereafter, the appellant filed the returns for the said period on 25th October, 2016. Learned Counsel claimed that in the said return, the advance was not adjusted against any duty paid. He claimed that the said situation continued till they filed refund on 23rd June, 2018. The Learned Counsel argued that the said refund was rejected on account of limitation prescribed under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944. Learned Counsel claimed that since the amount paid by them vide GAR challan and claimed as refund had not attained the character of duty payment, as the same was deposited in terms o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Court in the case of Mafatlal (supra). 23. In view of the clear pronouncement of law by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court with regard to refund claim, precedents relied on by the petitioner are not applicable as they are not on the issue directly covering the field since the payment is made by the petitioner voluntarily during the course of investigation towards Central Excise Duty, in Form No.TR-6, without any protest and refund claim is also not filed in the prescribed form, that too, within a period of limitation as prescribed along with an affidavit stating that petitioner has not passed on duty to another person, this petition is liable to be rejected." He also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom April-2016 to September- 2016, it has been observed that they have not reflected the said e-payment in their ST-3 return in Part C of Service tax paid in advance under sub rule (1A) of Rule 6 of ST Rules. It is also noticed that as per ST-3 at Part-H2 i.e. Source Documents details for payments made in advance/adjustment, for entries made is 'null', which shows that the appellant has not paid any excess deposit in August, 2016. However, the appellant have failed to fulfil the mandatory provisions of Rule 6(1A) of ST Rules as discussed above paras. Therefore, plea taken by the appellant is not tenable and refund claim is liable for its rejection." It is seen that the appellant deposited a certain amount through GAR challan. The a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
