TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (6) TMI 1481
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n amount as advance towards sale of concerned units to customers and on collection of advances, service tax was paid. This advance were being adjusted in the books against the consideration due from customers which was recoverable on demand notes, to arrive at the net amount to be received from such customers. However in certain cases, the initial payment was made against advance and has not been adjusted against the tax payable on demand notes issued resulting payment of excess service tax than the amount liable to pay. However when the above omission was brought to the notice to the appellant, appellant could not carry forward the excess amount due to introduction of GST. As per the provision of GST, appellant is eligible to make claim of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....97/-, Learned counsel further submits that this documents and the entire invoice, were made available to the adjudicating authority for verification at the time of submitting the refund claim and also while submitting reply to the show cause notice. Learned counsel draw our attention to the reply to the show cause notice submitted by the appellant where it is stated that the following document were submitted:- (a) Cenvat Register (b) Demand Notes Register (c) Service Tax Returns (d) Service Tax Challans (e) Service Tax refund workings (f) Cenvat bills (g) Demand Notes However no reference were made by the adjudicating authority based on said documents and claim is rejected on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pplicable as provided under Section 11B (one year from the relevant date), due to overriding effect of CGST Act. Accordingly, I find that the appellant is entitled to refund under the provisions of Section 142(3) r/w 142(8) (b) of the CGST Act r/w the erstwhile provisions of Central Excise Act and the Cenvat Credit Rules. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that retention of the amount paid in the excess of the tax payable by the appellant is in violation the Article 265 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel also submits that the adjudication authority ignored two decisions of the CESTAT in the matter of Central Mine Planning And Design Institute Ltd Vs. CCE Bhopal (2014 (36) STR 328 (Tri-Del)) and in the matter ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...."service tax" payable in law. Therefore, once it is not payable in law there was no authority for the department to retain such amount. By any stretch 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". 5. The judgment in COMMR. OF C.EX. (APPEALS), BANGALORE (Supra) was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme court also (reported in 2018 (14) GSTL J70 (S C). 6. Learned AR reiterated the finding given by the adjudicating/appellate authority and submits that the claim of the appellant is barred by limitation since the appellant is seeking refund of excess amount paid since, 2014. Thus adjudicating/ appellate authority rightly rejected the claim on the ground....