2007 (7) TMI 637

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... inst the Order-in-Revision No.2/ST/07 dated 27-3-2007 passed by CCE, C ST Mysore. 2. In terms of the impugned order, the appellant is required to deposit ₹ 32,791/- being the refund erroneously sanctioned to the appellant. The learned Counsel Shri C.R. Raghavendra stated that the appellant paid service tax even on. the interest collected under a mistaken notion of law. Later he realised .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... al Industries - 1997 (89) E.L.T. 241 (para 20) wherein it was held that in respect of incidental levy, the refund would not be governed by Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. Further he relied on the following case laws. (1) National Tobacco Corporation of India - 1978 (2) E.L.T. J416 (S.C.) (2) Hexacom (I) Ltd. v. CCE - 2006 (3) S.T.R. 131 (Tribunal) = 2003 (156) E.L.T. 357 (Tribunal) .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X