9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 96X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ior to 1.6.2007 and hence, it has been filed beyond the period of one year permitted under Section 11 B - refund rightly rejected on ground of time bar. Hon’ble High Court has allowed the refund of tax making use of its extra ordinary jurisdiction conferred upon them under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Admittedly, such powers are not vested in this Tribunal. The Tribunal has been created in the statute and cannot exercise such weeping powers, which are bestowed upon the High Courts. Consequently, we are unable to extend the benefit of these High Courts decisions. Refund rejected - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - Service Tax Appeal No. 75/2011 - ST/A/56058/2016-CU[DB] - Dated:- 23-12-2016 - Shri S. K. Moh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in terms of sub clause (zzzy) of Section 65 (105) of the Finance Act, 1994 and were not falling under any taxable category prior to that period. As such, the appellants had filed a refund claim for ₹ 3,30,71,362/- on 7.7.2009 in respect of service tax paid on such services received during the period prior to 1.6.2007 from various service providers. Since no service tax was leviable on the impugned services rendered prior to 1.6.2007, the collection of such amount by the service provider from the appellants was erroneous and accordingly, the payment thereof to the Central Government was also erroneous under the mistaken belief of levy of service tax. As no service tax was leviable on the impugned services rendered prior to 1.6.2007, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2(26)STR 195 (Kar.) (ii) Geojit BNP Paribas Financial Services Ltd.-2010(39)STR 706(Ker.) (iii) ITEL Industries Ltd.Vs.CCE,Calicut-2014(301)ELT288 (Ker.) 5. Ld. AR, on the other hand, reiterates the findings of the authorities below. His submission is that the amount under dispute has been paid by the appellant by way of service tax and hence, any refund thereof will have to be decided in line with the provisions of the statute. The time limits for grant of refund is strictly specified in Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which has been made applicable for service tax matters. Since the refund claim in question has been filed beyond the period of one year, the same has been rightly rejected by the authorities b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d this Court contending that Section 11 B is not applicable as there was no duty cast on them to pay service tax and they have paid such amount under mistaken notion. Viewed from any angle, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge was justified in sitting aside that portion of the order which rejected the claim of refund and accordingly same is confirmed. 8. As may be seen from the above decision, the Hon ble High Court has allowed the refund of tax making use of its extra ordinary jurisdiction conferred upon them under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Admittedly, such powers are not vested in this Tribunal. The Tribunal has been created in the statute and cannot exercise such weeping powers, which are bestowed upo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
