9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 1092X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - Admittedly, the duty in this case has been paid under the mistake of law as the appellant is engaged in transportation of agriculture products, which is rice, that is exempted by the Notification No.25/2012 dated 26.6.2012. The appellant has paid the service tax under the mistake of law. The issue is settled in favour of the appellant by the Hon ble Supreme Court in case of ITC [ 1993 (7) TMI 75 - SUPREME COURT ] and also by the decision of this Tribunal in case of Ambiance Hospitality [ 2018 (12) TMI 1112 - CESTAT NEW DELHI ] The decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Doaba Cooperative Sugar Mills, [ 1988 (8) TMI 103 - SUPREME COURT ] is not identical to the case at hand. In this case it was the question of refund of duty and it is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal of Revenue. Being aggrieved the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant, M/s is holder of service tax registration No. AAMCA7359MSB001 and rendering the service tax under the reversed charge mechanism for GTA services. The appellant has filed a refund claim for the amount of ₹ 3,71,524/- on 09.10.2017 with the Department on the ground that they have paid service tax on GTA under the reversed charged mechanism in respect of transportation of rice from their rice mill to the godown of Food Corporation of India from the period 2015-16 and 2016-17 The transportation of rice is exempted under the Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 26.06.2012 as amended. 3. The Departmental issued show ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view of decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Collector of C.E. Chandigarh, vs. Doaba Co-operative Sugar Mills [1988 (37)ELT 478 (SC)] 7. I have heard the submissions made by both the sides and also perused the appeal records. 8. The issue before me is to decide as to whether the time limit as prescribed under Section 11B read with provisions of Section 83 of the Finance Act is applicable in this case. Admittedly, the duty in this case has been paid under the mistake of law as the appellant is engaged in transportation of agriculture products, which is rice, that is exempted by the Notification No.25/2012 dated 26.6.2012. The appellant has paid the service tax under the mistake of law, and therefore, it is the contention of the lear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
