TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>Appellate Tribunal rectifies error, allows refund without formal application for service tax pre-deposit</h1> The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, CHENNAI acknowledged a mistake in Final Order No. 1257/2006 regarding the denial of refund of a pre-deposit for service tax ... Rectification of mistake - Appellant pre-deposit the amount of service tax and it is get back to appellant when appeal is allowed – though final disallow the credit even when appeal is allowed – Final order rectified and allowed the refund of pre-deposit Issues: Mistake apparent from the record in Final Order No. 1257/2006 regarding refund of pre-deposit for service tax paid for appeal.In the judgment delivered by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, CHENNAI, the appellants filed an application pointing out a mistake apparent from the record in Final Order No. 1257/2006 dated 7-12-2006. The mistake related to the denial of refund of the pre-deposit made for service tax paid on 8-8-2006 in connection with the appeal. The learned counsel argued that once the appeal is allowed, the appellant is entitled to the return of the pre-deposit. The learned JDR also opined on the matter, stating that a refund of the pre-deposit cannot be ordered without a formal application.Upon examination of the records, it was noted that the service tax amount had indeed been paid as a pre-deposit for the appeal, as evidenced by the relevant challan on record. The Tribunal acknowledged that when an appeal is allowed, the appellant should receive back the pre-deposited amount. However, due to a mistake in the final order, this relief was erroneously denied to the appellant on the grounds that there was no claim for refund in the memo of appeal. To rectify this mistake, the Tribunal decided to delete the last two sentences in paragraph 7 of the impugned order and substitute them with a new sentence specifying the entitlement of the appellant to the return of the pre-deposit without the necessity of filing a formal application for the same. Consequently, the application filed by the appellants was allowed to the extent mentioned in the judgment. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in open court, ensuring clarity and transparency in the decision-making process.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
