9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 306X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unts paid as Service Tax on grounds of limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 even though the levy under Section 66B of the Finance Act, 1994 does not apply to the activities of the Appellant? (ii) Whether the Tribunal is justified and correct in upholding rejection of the refund claims contrary to law declared by various High Courts and in particular the jurisdictional Hon'ble Court in the cases relied upon by the Appellant? (iii) Whether the Tribunal is justified in denying substantive right of claim for refund based on decisions of the CESTAT wherein the factual position was different and activities carried out by the Appellants were taxable services?" 2. Heard Shri. L.S. Karthikeyan, learned Advocate for a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng amount. Assessee challenged the Order-in-Original before Commissioner (Appeals) and the same was rejected. Assessee filed further appeal before CESTAT (Central Excise Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal) and the same has also been dismissed by the impugned order. 5. Shri. L.S. Karthikeyan submitted that assessee's services are not taxable. The Assessing Officer has held that the services provided to the client based in the USA falls under Rule 5 of Place of Provision of Services, 2012 and the activities undertaken fall under export of services. Having recorded the said finding, he has allowed a part of the claim and rejected the remaining claim on the ground that the claim was not filed within one year from the date of export. He submitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in isolation, not in their comprehensive implications and docket management is an art awaiting its Indian dawn. The facts, being admitted, obviate debate. All these appellants and writ petitioners had paid market fees at the increased rate of 3 per cent (raised from the original 2 per cent) under Haryana Act 22 of 1977. Many dealers challenged the levies as unconstitutional, and this Court, in a series of appeals (CAs Nos. 1083 of 1977 etc.) [Kewal Kishan Puri v. State of Punjab, (1980) 1 SCC 416] ruled that the excess of 1 per cent over the original rate of 2 per cent was ultra vires. This cast a consequential liability on the Market Committees to refund the illegal portion. They were not so ordered probably because they could not straight ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
