9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 944X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s held that Evidently, the Notification No. 12/2012 25/2012 ceased to exist w.e.f. 1-4-2015. The exemption was revived by notification dated 1-3-2016. 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. It was only by virtue of subsequent legislation the notification was made effective from retrospective date with the stipulations that refund can be claimed within specific time provided. There was thus no ambiguity nor any dispute as would have prevented the appellant from seeking refund within the period of limitation. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - Service Tax Appeal No.1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 1 to clause (44) of section 65B of the said Act, under a contract entered into before the 1st day of March, 2015 and on which appropriate stamp duty, where applicable, had been paid before that date. (2) Refund shall be made of all such service tax which has been collected 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rd to substantial questions of law as proposed at A , we are not commended to any cogent material that the amount of Rs. 25,49,317/- towards service 3 SERVICE TAX Appeal No. 10439 of 2019-SM tax and the penalty thereof Rs. 57,716/- for the period 1-3-2015 to 30-9-2015 was deposited 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 depos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
