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>Service tax refund allowed for payment made under mistake of law on non-leviable construction service</h1> <h3>M/s Parijat Construction, M/s Giriraj Construction Versus Commissioner of Central Excise</h3> M/s Parijat Construction, M/s Giriraj Construction Versus Commissioner of Central Excise - 2018 (359) E.L.T. 113 (Bom.) , 2018 (9) G. S. T. L. 8 (Bom.) Issues:Challenge to order of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding refund claim for service tax paid under a mistake of law.Analysis:The Appellant challenged a common order by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal upholding Orders-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs. The Appellant, engaged in providing 'Commercial or Industrial Construction' service, secured a contract for construction work and paid service tax under the belief that it was applicable. A refund claim was filed, but it was rejected as time-barred under Section 11 B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Commissioner (Appeals) partly allowed the appeal, and the Appellate Tribunal dismissed it, citing limitation under Section 11 B.The Appellant argued that Section 11 B does not apply to refund claims for service tax paid under a mistake of law. They relied on judgments by the High Court and the Supreme Court to support this contention. The Respondent, however, supported the impugned order, stating that the limitation under Section 11 B applies to all refund claims. The High Court noted that previous decisions by the Division Bench supported the Appellant's position that the limitation under Section 11 B does not apply to refund claims for service tax paid under a mistake of law. The Court found the impugned order erroneous in applying the limitation to the present case and allowed the Appeals, directing the Respondent to refund the amount to the Appellant.In conclusion, the High Court held that the limitation under Section 11 B does not apply to refund claims for service tax paid under a mistake of law. The impugned order was set aside, and the refund claim of the Appellant was fully allowed. The Respondent was directed to refund the specified amount within three months, with no order as to costs.
TaxTMI 