Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2019 (3) TMI 153

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r the impugned adjudication are that the appellant filed a refund claim of Rs. 33,69,820/- vide an application dated 15.12.2000 before Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Udaipur, as the appellant had paid service tax erroneously on the services which were not liable for service tax. However, a show cause notice dated 30th January, 2001 was issued proposing the rejection of the said claim. While adjudicating upon the said show cause notice, Assistant Commissioner vide order No.5 dated 3.9.01 had rejected the refund claim. The appeal thereof was also rejected vide order dated 4.3.03. An appeal was preferred before this Tribunal, which vide final order dated 2nd August 2005 was also rejected. An appeal thereafter was preferred before Hon'....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g.) 4. Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. vs. CCE, Raipur reported in 2017 (52) STR 443 (Tr.-Del.) 5. It has submitted that this Tribunal also vide the Final Order No.53105 dated 26th September, 2018 has decided the identical issue in favour of the appellants. The impugned order is therefore prayed to be set aside. Appeal is prayed to be allowed. 6. Per contra, it is submitted by ld. A.R. on behalf of the Department that the refund was initially rejected on the ground of tax incidence to have been passed on to others. Though this Tribunal vide Final Order dated 08.10.2015 has decided the issue of unjust enrichment in favour of the appellant, but the fact still remains is that after the said order, the application for seeking refund was file....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tion the order made by such higher Appellate Authority or by the Court shall be deemed to be an order made under sub-section (2) of Section 11B of the Act. It is clear that the Explanation has nothing to do with the postponement of the date from which interest becomes payable under Section 11BB of the Act. Manifestly, interest under Section 11BB of the Act becomes payable, if on an expiry of a period of three months from the date of receipt of the application for refund, the amount claimed is still not refunded. Thus, the only interpretation of Section 11BB that can be arrived at is that interest under the said Section becomes payable on the expiry of a period of three months from the date of receipt of the application under Sub-section (1)....