9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1114X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missioner (AR) for Respondent ORDER Per: Anil G. Shakkarwar The present appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. 211-ST/APPL-LKO/LKO/2017 dated 06/09/2017 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) GST & Central Excise, Lucknow. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was registered under Service Tax for Goods Transport Agency Service and was paying Service Tax on the said service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ey had paid Rs. 8,76,090/- (-) Rs. 2,19,020/- = Rs. 6,57,070/- excess Service Tax. The said excess paid Service Tax was sought to be refunded through the said application. The appellant was issued with a Show Cause Notice dated 24/06/2015, wherein it was contended that in terms of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, made applicable to Service Tax through Section 83 of the Finance Act, 199 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tary evidence that the incidence of excess payment had not been passed on by him to any other person. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant is before this Tribunal. 3. Heard ld. Counsel - Shri A.P. Mathur, for the appellant. He has submitted that excess amount, which was sought as refund was paid under mistake of law and the said amount does not represent Service Tax in view of Notification No.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Nashik reported at 2018 (9) G.S.T.L. 8 (Bombay), wherein it was held that the amount paid as duty by mistake of law is not covered by Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, so far as limitation is concerned. He has also relied on ruling of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of K.V.R. Constructions Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Bang ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
