TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal granted, refund claim accepted due to service tax exemption. Precedent applied.</h1> <h3>Nikon India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Gurgaon-II</h3> The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the order rejecting the refund claim. It held that the appellant was not liable to pay service tax for the ... Refund claim - export of services - Business Auxiliary Services - rejection on account of Time Bar - Held that: - the appellant was not a liable to pay service tax at all. Therefore, the amount paid by the appellant towards service tax is not service tax, consequently, the provisions of Section 11B of the Act are not applicable - appellant entitle to refund - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:Appeal against rejection of refund claim based on erroneous payment of service tax under 'Business Auxiliary Services' category during a specific period.Analysis:The appellant, engaged in exporting services, mistakenly paid service tax under the 'Business Auxiliary Services' category from July 2012 to September 2012. Subsequently, they filed a refund claim for the amount paid erroneously, which was rejected as time-barred by the lower authority. The appellant contended that they were not liable to pay service tax at all for the services in question, hence the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, regarding time limits, should not apply. They cited the decision in the case of M/s. Gulshan Chemicals Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur-I to support their argument.The respondent argued that since the appellant did pay service tax, the provisions of Section 11B should apply, and therefore, the denial of the refund claim was justified. After hearing both parties and reviewing their submissions, the Tribunal found that the appellant was not liable to pay service tax at all for the services in question. Consequently, the amount paid by the appellant was not considered as service tax, and thus, Section 11B was deemed inapplicable, as per the precedent set in the case of M/s. Gulshan Chemicals Private Limited. Therefore, the limitation period for claiming a refund did not apply in this case. The Tribunal set aside the order rejecting the refund claim and held that the appellant was entitled to the refund.In conclusion, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief deemed necessary.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
