2008 (7) TMI 132

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he following Tabular Column: Sl. No. Appeal Nos. Name of the Parties Revision Order No. & Date Refund Amount 1. ST/170/2006 M/s Mysore Leasing and Finance Ltd ., Mysore 02/ST/2007 27.03.2007 Rs. 46,619/- 2 ST/171/2006 M/s M.C.I. Leasing (P) Ltd., Mysore 03/ST/2007 27.03.2007 Rs. 2,31,658/- 2. S/Shri V. Raghuraman and CR Raghavendra, the learned Advocates appeared on behalf of the appellants and Shri Sambi Reddy, the learned Departmental Representative, for the Revenue. 3. We heard both sides, 4. The issue involved is that the appellants paid service tax on the finance charges collected from their customers during the period from July 2001 to August 2004 inadvertently. Later they disco....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... authority of law. It was urged that Section 11B would be applicable only if refund is sought that of 'service tax' which is otherwise leviable. Collection made without the authority of law cannot be termed as illegal levy attracting the provisions of the Act., They relied on the following case-laws in support of their contentions: (a) National Tobacco Corp of India - 1978 (2) ELT J416 (SC) (b) Mafatlal Industries Ltd. Vs. UOI - 1996 (17) RLT 907 (SC) = 1997 (89) ELT 247 (SC) (c) Thermax Ltd. Vs. CCE - 2007 (83) RLT 958 (CESTAT-Mum.) = 2007 (8) STR 487 (Tri.-Mumbai) (d) CCE Vs. Motorola India Pvt. Ltd. - 2006 (206) ELT 90 (Kar.) (e) Hind Agro Industries Ltd. Vs. CC, - 2008 (221) ELT 336 (Del) (f) Salonah Tea Compan....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d-III Vs. XL Telecom Ltd. - 2006 (206) ELT 303 (Tri.-Bang.) (g) Avanti Feeds Ltd. Vs. CC, Chennai - 2007 (80) RLT 681 (CESTAT-Ban.) = 2007 (213) ELT 280 (Tri.-Bang.) 7. On a very careful consideration of the issue, we find that even though the appellant had paid service tax on finance charges, which is not leviable to service tax during the relevant time when they had to claim the refund that should be within the corners of Section 11B as statutory authority cannot ignore the specific enactments under which the refund claim is filed. This is very clear from the various decisions of the Supreme Court and also by the Tribunal. We do not agree with the learned Advocates that para 99 (ii) of the Mafatlal Industries case has pronounced tha....