2021 (10) TMI 1172

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ppellant Shri K.B.Nanaiah, Authorized 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 t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hich has resulted in the present appeal before 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 C....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tch of imagination, it will not amount to duty of excise 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....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... to the tune of Rs. 42,26,975/-. The Authorities have turned down the 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 ei....