2006 (1) TMI 571

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ommissioner (A), who in turn upheld the Order-in-Original. Both the authorities below held that the refund claim filed by the appellants was time-barred. The appellant, who was carrying on the business of rendering pilotage services at minor ports by describing this as management consultant services was paying service tax, but actually the appellant's unit was brought into the net of s .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ther noted that provisions contained in section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 have not been made applicable to service tax. Therefore, if any amounts are collected erroneously as representing service tax, which is not in force, there is no bar to the return of such amounts. The rejection of refund application was, therefore, not correct. But the Commissioner (A) has observed the said .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d the claim invoking the provisions of section 11B stating that the claim was lodged beyond the period of six months (the period was extended to one year with effect from May 12, 2000). Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ petition in the Gujarat High Court. The honourable High Court held that, it was a case of mutual mistake committed by both, the petitioner and the department, therefore .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X