TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (10) TMI 1172
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....zed Representative for the Respondent ORDER By this appeal, the appellant has challenged the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Kochi, whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the rejection of refund claim. It is the case of the appellant that they have filed a refund claim of Rs. 22,16,229/- for the refund of service tax paid by them for the period October 2016 to Decemb....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ore this Forum. 3. Heard Shri Badrinath, learned Chartered Accountant for the appellant and Shri K.B.Nanaiah, learned Authorized Representative for the Respondent, I have gone through the documents placed on record and also gone through the various decisions relied on during the course of argument. In such a situation, the jurisdictional Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in one of its decisions in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cise to attract Section 11B. Therefore, it is outside the purview of Section 11B of the Act." The SLP against this order was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 4. In one another case, M/s DHL Express India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Service Tax-2021-TIOL-1830-HC-KAR-CUS, the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court again dealt with the same situation and after analyzing Section 27 of the Customs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....claim of appellant on the ground of limitation. The claim of the appellant could have been corrected and the Tribunal has erred in observing that the payment of excess duty requires to be rectified under Section 154 of the said Act of 1962. The Authorities ought to have refunded the said excess amount to the appellant Company either upon their application or on an application made by the importer.....