Skip to main content

Excess Service Tax paid by mistake can’t be refunded under Finance Act, 1994

In Service Tax APPEAL No. 31055 of 2018, Oil India Limited vs Commissioner of Central Tax, the appellant is engaged in the business of exploration of mineral oil and natural gas. During the relevant period, they availed services of M/s B.J. Services in relation to drilling of exploratory in respect of which, the latter discharged appropriate service tax to the department. However, on the same services, the appellant also paid service tax under reverse charge mechanism to the extent of Rs.20,43,584/- under various challans. On realizing that the service tax was paid wrongfully, the appellants claimed refund of the same from the department. 

The claim was rejected by the department as being time barred. 

The Tribunal noted that the refund application was filed beyond a period of one year. It was further noticed that the refund jurisdiction of the Officers of Central Excise and Service Tax emanates from Section 12E and Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 and Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 and the Officers have no jurisdiction to decide matters which fall beyond the scope of the law itself. In such cases, the appropriate legal remedy as held by Hon’ble Apex Court is Civil Suit under Section 72 of the Contract Act and the Officers have no jurisdiction to decide on such Civil Suits.

The Tribunal decided that the appeal is rejected as a refund claim under Section 11B of Central Excise Act,1944 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 is not maintainable for any amount paid beyond the scope of the Finance Act, 1994 itself but the appellant is free to pursue other remedies as has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Limited (supra) to recover the amount wrongly paid by them beyond the scope of Finance Act, 1994.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t
Post a Comment
Read more

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even
Post a Comment
Read more