2017 (4) TMI 561

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sed. 2. The ld. Counsel for the applicant appellant states that they had raised the specific ground in the appeal that the service provided by them was covered under Export of Service Rules, particularly Rule 3, of Export Service Rules, 2005, and was not taxable. The appellant had not paid the tax on the said service provided by appellant, was covered under Business Auxiliary Service (BAS) provided from India to their clients located outside India. Pursuant to audit, the Revenue demanded Service tax on the said transaction by letter dated 15/07/2008 and in compliance to the said direction the appellant deposited an amount of Rs. 54,67,571/-, as Service tax and further Rs. 10,24,535/- towards interest. Subsequently, CBEC clarified vide Bo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ke of law, the party has a right to recover it and there is a corresponding legal obligation on the part of the government to refund the excess duty so collected because the collection in such cases would be without the authority of law. The payment and recovery of Excise duty was thus, on account of mutual mistake. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the High Court, while disposing of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, was perfectly justified in holding that the Bar of limitation with had been put against the respondent by the Collector of Central Excise Appeals, to deny them the refund for the period in question, was not proper as admittedly the respondent had approached the Assistant Collector of Excise ....