Concessional penalty for search-disclosed unreconciled jewellery applies where substantive disclosure conditions are met despite omission from origina...
CESTAT allowed refund of service tax paid twice for April-June 2017 period, ruling that limitation under Section 11B of Central Excise Act 1944 does not apply. The Tribunal held that when service tax is paid twice - first legally and second inadvertently - the second payment lacks legal basis as there is no taxable event. Following precedents from Gujarat HC and earlier CESTAT rulings, it was determined that time-bar provisions are inapplicable for amounts paid under mistaken notion where no tax liability existed. The impugned order was set aside and refund claim allowed, as duplicate payment cannot be considered as tax/duty under Section 11B.
CESTAT allowed refund of service tax paid twice for April-June 2017 period, ruling that limitation under Section 11B of Central Excise Act 1944 does not apply. The Tribunal held that when service tax is paid twice - first legally and second inadvertently - the second payment lacks legal basis as there is no taxable event. Following precedents from Gujarat HC and earlier CESTAT rulings, it was determined that time-bar provisions are inapplicable for amounts paid under mistaken notion where no tax liability existed. The impugned order was set aside and refund claim allowed, as duplicate payment cannot be considered as tax/duty under Section 11B.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
