9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 860X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... placed on the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Madras in the case of M/S. 3E INFOTECH VERSUS CUSTOMS, EXCISE SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS-I) [ 2018 (7) TMI 276 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] is very apt, wherein it has been categorically held that the Service Tax paid under mistake of law has to be refunded irrespective of the period covered as refusal thereof would be contrary to the mandate of Article 265 of the Constitution of India. The denial of refund is contrary to the settled position of law - the rejection of refund are set aside - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Service Tax Appeal No. 40147 of 2020 - FINAL ORDER NO. 41607/2021 - Dated:- 23-6-2021 - MR. P. DINESHA, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 04.04.2019 was issued inter alia proposing to reject the appellant s refund claim on the ground that the same was neither covered by Section 142 of the CGST Act, 2017 nor relatable to Section 11B(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as made applicable to Service Tax. The appellant offered a detailed reply, seriously contesting the denial. 3. However, vide Order-in-Original No. 13/2019 (Refund) dated 09.07.2019, the proposal in the Show Cause Notice came to be confirmed. Upon appeal, the rejection also came to be upheld by the First Appellate Authority vide impugned Order-in-Appeal No. 36/2019 (CTA-I) dated 05.12.2019. Against this rejection, the present appeal has been filed before this forum. 4. When the matter was taken up for hearin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in question. 6.3 He further refers to Sub-Sections (1) to (5) of Section 142 of the CGST Act, 2017 and concludes that the refund claim of the appellant does not fit into any of the provisions of Section 142 ibid; that the refund claim was not relatable to Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as made applicable to Service Tax. This finding and the rejection has been adopted in the impugned Order-in-Appeal, however, with an observation that the appellant may be eligible otherwise for the CENVAT Credit of Service Tax paid by them under Reverse Charge Mechanism and that the only provision for cash refund was under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, which is not the situation in the case on hand. 7. The Revenue having collected pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
