Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Bansal Biscuits Private Limited Vs Commr. of Central Excise & Service Tax (CESTAT Kolkata)
Appeal Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 75363 of 2016
Date of Judgement/Order : 17/11/2023
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Bansal Biscuits Private Limited Vs Commr. of Central Excise & Service Tax (CESTAT Kolkata)

The CESTAT, in Kolkata M/s. Bansal Biscuits Private Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Patna [Service Tax Appeal No. 75363 of 2016 dated November 17, 2023] held that time limit prescribed for claiming refund under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (“the CEA”) would not be applicable in cases when Service Tax is paid erroneously.

Facts:

M/s Bansal Biscuits Private Limited (“the Appellant”) is engaged in the business of manufacturing of Biscuits and is registered with Service Tax Authorities for paying Service Tax under the Reverse Charge Mechanism for Goods and Transport Agency services (“GTA Services”) utilized by them. The Revenue Department (“the Respondent”) issued a Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated June 20, 2012, (“the Notification”) wherein exemption from payment of Service Tax is granted on payment of GTA Services availed in case of transportation of food products. However, the Appellant continued to pay the Service Tax under Reverse Charge. Later, it came to the knowledge of the Appellant that the Notification had been issued, granting the exemption from payment of Service Tax. Thereafter the Appellant filed an application for refund claim dated September 9, 2015. However, the Respondent issued a Show Cause Notice as to why the refund claim should not be rejected as the same being time-barred under Section 11B of the CEA. Thereafter the Respondent Authority vide its Order rejected the refund claim under Section 11B r/w Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Appellant filed an appeal wherein the Respondent Appellate Authority vide order dated March 15, 2016 (“the Impugned Order”) upheld the Order.

Aggrieved, the Appellant filed an appeal against the Impugned Order passed, before the Tribunal for claiming of refund.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031