9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1219X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lse, but was passed to self is tenable in law therefore the order under challenge needs to be modified to that extent that the amount of refund allowed of 317031/- shall be refunded to the appellant. Time limitation - Held that: - the said amount did not constitute service tax and therefore was not liable to be subjected to the provisions of section 11B in so far as limitation is concerned and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... them. Their liability for service tax under GTA service was decided through order-in-appeal No.22-ST/LKO/2014 dated 16.1.2014 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Lucknow. The ld. Commissioner in said order-in-appeal dated 16.1.2014 held that appellants were not chargeable with service tax on GTA service. Consequent to such a finding by ld. Commissioner(Appeals) appellants submitted application for r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he burden of service tax on anybody else, but it was passed on self. Therefore the question of unjust enrichment does arise. In respect of the amount of refund rejected as time barred he has submitted that as held by the ld. Commissioner(Appeals) through order-in-appeal dated 16.01.2014, the amount which was paid as service tax and interest thereon were not liable to be paid under section 64 of Fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant that the duty incidence was not passed on to anybody else, but was passed to self is tenable in law therefore the order under challenge needs to be modified to that extent that the amount of refund allowed of ₹ 317031/- shall be refunded to the appellant. Further in respect of amount which was rejected under limitation following the ruling by Hon'ble Karnataka High Court relied u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
