2024 (4) TMI 1041

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Karan Talwar, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Heard on admission. 3. This appeal filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short "the Act, 1944") takes exception to the order dated 05.09.2022 passed in Service Tax Appeal No. 30781 of 2018 by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Regional Bench at Hyderabad (Tribunal), whereby the appeal filed by the respondent was allowed by the said Tribunal. 4. It was pointed out that the respondent worked pursuant to 'Works Contract' between the period from 30.09.2012 to 30.06.2014 and paid service tax arising thereto. On 10.02.2017, it filed an application for refund of Service Tax of Rs. 1,60,81,347/- by contending that under the Act, 1944 it was not liabl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... be applicable or inapplicable, in a case where any amount even though it is not payable as service tax, is voluntarily paid by the assessee?" 8. To elaborate, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v Union of India 1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 (S.C.). He submits that in the light of this judgment, the Tribunal has committed an error of law which has given rise to the aforesaid substantial question of law. The other side raised objection. 9. We have heard the matter at length. It is seen that the single question raised by Mr. Dominic Fernandes, learned counsel is no more res integra. In the manner proposed question is framed, it is not in dispute that service tax was not payable by the assessee....