9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 1041X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the judgment of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. nowhere talks of a situation where the refund of a tax paid under the relevant Act albeit erroneously was required to be made under the Excise Act or the Customs Act and under no other enactment. It was clearly held that judgment of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. (supra 1) is of no assistance in a case where tax is erroneously paid as a mistake of law. The Tribunal has also taken note of the judgment of Karnataka High Court in COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS), BANGALORE VERSUS KVR CONSTRUCTION [ 2012 (7) TMI 22 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ]. The Karnataka High Court also considered the judgment of Delhi High Court in case of Hind Agro Industries Limited [ 2007 (8) TMI 215 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led an application for refund of Service Tax of Rs. 1,60,81,347/- by contending that under the Act, 1944 it was not liable to pay the tax and tax was paid as a mistake of law. The said application was dismissed on 05.06.2017 by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Hyderabad. 5. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent-company preferred an appeal, which came to be dismissed on 28.02.2018 by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Tax (appeals-I), Hyderabad. The respondent then approached the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Authority by filing Service Tax Appeal No. 30781 of 2018. 6. During the course of hearing, it is pointed out that there was a cleavage of opinion amongst the Members of the Tribunal regar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... integra. In the manner proposed question is framed, it is not in dispute that service tax was not payable by the assessee. This question came up for consideration before the Delhi High Court in Hind Agro Industries Limited v. Commissioner of Customs 2008 (221) ELT 336 (Del.). After considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. (supra 1), the Delhi High Court held that the judgment of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. (supra 1) nowhere talks of a situation where the refund of a tax paid under the relevant Act albeit erroneously was required to be made under the Excise Act or the Customs Act and under no other enactment. It was clearly held that judgment of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. (supra 1) is of no assista ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
