SIGN IN SUBSCRIBE

News Update

Cus - When there is nothing on record to show that appellant had connived with other three persons to import AA batteries under the guise of declaring goods as Calcium Carbonate, penalty imposed on appellant are set aside: HCCongress fields Rahul Gandhi from Rae Bareli and Kishori Lal Sharma from AmethiCus - The penalty imposed on assessee was set aside by Tribunal against which revenue is in appeal is far below the threshold limit fixed under Notification issued by CBDT, thus on the ground of monetary policy, revenue cannot proceed with this appeal: HCGST -Since both the SCNs and orders pertain to same tax period raising identical demand by two different officers of same jurisdiction, proceedings on SCNs are clubbed and shall be re-adjudicated by one proper officer: HCFormer Jharkhand HC Chief Justice, Justice Sanjaya Kumar Mishra appointed as President of GST TribunalSale of building constructed on leasehold land - GST implicationI-T - If assessee is not charging VAT paid on purchase of goods & services to its P&L account i.e., not claiming it as expenditure, there is no requirement to treat refund of such VAT as income: ITATBengal Governor restricts entry of State FM and local police into Raj BhawanI-T - Interest received u/s 28 of Land Acquisition Act 1894 awarded by Court is capital receipt being integral part of enhanced compensation and is exempt u/s 10(37): ITATCops flatten camps of protesting students at Columbia UnivI-T - No additions are permitted on account of bogus purchases, if evidence submitted on purchase going into export and further details provided of sellers remaining uncontroverted: ITATTurkey stops all trades with Israel over GazaI-T- Provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(a) cannot be invoked, where a necessary condition of the money received without consideration by assessee, has not been fulfilled: ITATGirl students advised by Pak college to keep away from political eventsI-T- As per settled position in law, cooperative housing society can claim deduction u/s 80P, if interest is earned on deposit of own funds in nationalised banks: ITATApple reports lower revenue despite good start of the yearI-T- Since difference in valuation is minor, considering specific exclusion provision benefit is granted to assessee : ITATHome-grown tech of thermal camera transferred to IndustryI-T - Presumption u/s 292C would apply only to person proceeded u/s 153A and not for assessee u/s 153C: ITATECI asks parties to cease registering voters for beneficiary-oriented schemes under guise of surveys
 
ST - Excess amount paid by appellant by way of service tax can be refunded subject to provisions of Sec 11B only - Tribunal is a creature of statute and needs to function within its four walls: CESTAT

By TIOL News Service

NEW DELHI, FEB 09, 2017: WITH effect from 01.05.2006 a new service of 'sale of space or time for advertisement services' was introduced in the statute book and appellant started payment of service tax under the new category.

However, on actual realization of the value of services in January 2007, the service tax pertaining to the period May to December 2006 was paid once again. Net result was that the appellant ended up paying towards the service tax, amount of Rs.14,92,703/- twice.

Therefore, the appellant filed a refund claim on 25.07.2007.

The original authority as well as the Commissioner (A) held that a part of the refund claim amounting to Rs.4,23,454/- was time barred inasmuch as the refund claim has been filed beyond the period of one year specified u/s 11B of CEA, 1944.

Aggrieved, the appellant is before the CESTAT and submits that the amount should be refunded to them without considering time bar since the amount has been paid as service tax when it was not required to have been paid.

Support is inter alia drawn from the decisions in UOI Vs. ITC Ltd. 1993 (67) ELT 3 (SC), Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd - 2016-TIOL-47-CESTAT-AHM and Hexacom (I) Ltd. - 2003-TIOL-263-CESTAT-DEL.

The DR reiterated the impugned order and emphasized that any amount, before being refunded, has to satisfy the time limit specified under section 11B.

The Bench observed –

+ There is no doubt that the portion of the refund claim rejected to the extent of Rs.4,23,454/- pertains to the excess amount of service tax paid more than 1 year prior to filing of refund claim. Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, which has been made applicable to refund of service tax clearly states that the refund claim needs to be filed within a period of one year from the relevant date.

+ The excess amount has been paid by the appellant by way of service tax, and hence can be refunded only subject to provision of Section 11B which governs ground of refund of any service tax in this statute.

+ In the matter of reliance placed on the apex court decision, the CESTAT observed that whereas the Supreme Court as well as the High Courts are vested with special powers under the Constitution, the Tribunal is a creature of the statute and needs to function within the four walls of the statute.

Noting that the Bench is unable to extend the benefit of such decision of the Apex Court, the Bench held that the refund filed beyond the time limit of one year has been rightly rejected as time barred by the lower authorities.

The appeal was dismissed.

(See 2017-TIOL-370-CESTAT-DEL)


POST YOUR COMMENTS
   

TIOL Tube Latest

TIOL Tube
Shri N K Singh, recipient of TIOL FISCAL HERITAGE AWARD 2023, delivering his acceptance speech at Fiscal Awards event held on April 6, 2024 at Taj Mahal Hotel, New Delhi.

TOP NEWS

AR not Afar by SK Rahman

VISION 360



Shri Ram Nath Kovind, Hon'ble 14th President of India, addressing the gathering at TIOL Special Awards event.

TII LATEST

TIOLCORPLAWS LATEST