https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337945 Service tax recovered twice on the same taxable service could not be retained, because the liability had already been discharged once and the later adjustment from the security deposit and bills resulted in double recovery. The availability of CENVAT credit did not justify withholding the excess amount. Refund was therefore due, and the rejection order was unsustainable. The writ petition succeeded, the impugned order was quashed, and the authorities were directed to facilitate refund of the excess tax collected. en-us Wed, 14 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 21 Jan 2017 07:25:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337945 Service tax recovered twice on the same taxable service could not be retained, because the liability had already been discharged once and the later adjustment from the security deposit and bills resulted in double recovery. The availability of CENVAT credit did not justify withholding the excess amount. Refund was therefore due, and the rejection order was unsustainable. The writ petition succeeded, the impugned order was quashed, and the authorities were directed to facilitate refund of the excess tax collected. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 14 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337945