2010 (2) TMI 199

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... paid in the first instance as well as the second time was towards discharging service tax liability. Hence claim for refund of an amount of tax paid once over again should have been allowed and the refund claim ought not to have been rejected – refund allowed - S/5/2003 - 175/2010 - Dated:- 2-2-2010 - Hon'ble Ms.JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, Vice-President Hon'ble Dr. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY, Techn .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... .12.99; however, a sum of Rs.8,18,709/- was adjusted towards Central Excise arrears due and Rs.7000/- towards arrears of penalty, confirmed under five separate Orders-in-Original. The balance amount of Rs.59,109/- was refunded by a cheque dated 26.12.99. Vide the letter dated 29.5.2000, due to retrospective amendment made in the Finance Act of 2000, the amount refunded was directed to be repaid, a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ral Excise Act, 1944. The assessees were informed vide letter dated 12.12.2000 that the amount paid by them under the wrong category of 'Mandap Keeper Services' had been adjusted towards service tax liability under the category of 'Goods Transport Operators Services'. The SCN was adjudicated by rejecting the claim for refund on the ground that the amount was repaid in respect of Section 117 of th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X