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>Tribunal remands service tax refund claim for reconsideration, stresses natural justice principles.</h1> <h3>M/s Nagarjuna Constructions Company Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Hyderabad - II</h3> The Tribunal remanded the case back to the Adjudicating Authority for reconsideration of a refund claim for service tax paid by the appellants, ... Refund of service tax - refund rejected on the ground that refund claim was preferred beyond the period as provided under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 - principles of natural justice - Held that:- The issue involved in this case is regarding refund of the amount which has been claimed by the appellant before the lower authorities - Both the lower authorities have not considered the various case laws as mentioned by the appellants before the Tribunal and also the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Larsen & Tourbo Limited. [2015 (8) TMI 749 - SUPREME COURT]. The entire issue needs reconsideration by the Adjudicating Authority - appeal allowed by way of remand. Issues:Refund claim filed beyond the period of limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.Analysis:The appeal was against the rejection of a refund claim for service tax paid by the appellants during a specific period. The appellants believed their agreements to be composite works contracts not liable to service tax before 01.06.2007. The Adjudicating Authority and the First Appellate Authority rejected the refund claim as being beyond the limitation period under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant contended that the limitation period does not apply to service tax liability of composite works contracts, citing relevant judgments. The Departmental Representative argued that the refund applications must adhere to the limitation period specified in Section 11B. The Tribunal noted that both lower authorities did not consider the case laws cited by the appellants or the Apex Court's decision in a similar case. The Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority for reconsideration, emphasizing the need to follow principles of natural justice.The Tribunal observed that the key issue was the refund of the claimed amount, which required reconsideration by the Adjudicating Authority. The Tribunal highlighted that the lower authorities did not adequately consider the case laws cited by the appellants and the Apex Court's decision. Referring to a previous case involving the same appellant, the Tribunal emphasized the need for a thorough reconsideration of the matter by the lower authorities. Without expressing any opinion on the case's merits, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority for a fresh consideration following the principles of natural justice. The appeal was disposed of by way of remand.In conclusion, the Tribunal directed a reconsideration of the refund claim by the Adjudicating Authority, emphasizing the need to review the issue in its entirety and adhere to principles of natural justice. The decision highlighted the importance of considering relevant case laws and ensuring a comprehensive examination of the matter.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
