9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 248X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... INDIA) PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER [ 2021 (7) TMI 1261 - SC ORDER ] where it was held that the notification No. 12/2012 25/2012 ceased to exist w.e.f. 01/04/2015. The exemption was revived by notification dated 01/03/2016. But since it was prospective in effect, the appellant was not entitled for any exemption, which the appellant was aware of and with open mind and eyes deposited the service tax due with interest. The appeal is dismissed. - Service Tax Appeal No.11761 of 2018 - A/10078/2022 - Dated:- 3-2-2022 - MR. RAJU, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) None appeared for the Appellant Shri J A Patel, Superintendent (AR) for the Respondent ORDER This appeal has been filed by Bhoomi Construction Co. against the rejection ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... but which would not have been so collected had sub-section (1) been in force at all material times. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Chapter, an application for the claim of refund of service tax shall be made within a period of six months from the date on which the Finance Bill, 2016 receives the assent of the President. In the instant case, the refund claim was not filed within a period of six months as provided in sub Section (3) of Section 102 of Finance Act, 1994. The Finance Bill was granted assent on 14.05.2016. Refund claim has been filed on 05.09.2017. 2. None appeared on behalf of the appellant. The matter was earlier listed on 16.09.2021, 21.10.2021, 02.11.2021 and 18.11.2021 but no one appeared for the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... posited under misconception. Evidently, the works contract undertaken by the appellant during said period was not exempted. Therefore, the question that, the service tax and interest was paid under misconception does not arise, as would give rise for the proposed substantial question. 16. As regard to substantial question of law at B , the said question in given facts of present also does not arise for consideration. The appellant was under legal obligation to deposit the service tax in respect of the service rendered qua non-exempted service. The contentions that it was beyond the control of the appellant to deposit the service tax on exempted service is misconceived. Evidently, the Notification No. 12/2012 25/2012 ceased to exist w. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
