M/S K.V.R. Constructions vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 11 August, 2009

[Cites 4, Cited by 6]

Karnataka High Court

M/S K.V.R. Constructions vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 11 August, 2009

Bench: Ram Mohan Reddy

..£-

IN THE HIGH cmrm' OF KARNATAKA,   _

DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF' AUc:;L:s%f,;2c{j9  3 _: "  

13E1«*oRE1 

THE HODFBLE MR..;Us'I'm«: V_i\«'i€T)}i1fai\i'IV" 

WRIT PETITION No. 16'V7'73io1§* 2é09.. (réTA}2)

BETWEEN

M/S K.V.R.CONS'FRUC'fi"IONS; _ ., .. 

No.3, IST FLOUR 'gsaunm 2+.I<")'UsE'..,_  

HAUDIN ROAD';v.UL-S003  "   »

BANGALORE 42   »    '

REP. BY SHRI';~vK;vi;$;_QIJ 1.Rm_13m* '-(PRGPRIETOR)
  *3, _  .  PETITIONER

(By Sn". «Iv R. 8ALE§SijBR;&§§AN*I <35 M NAGENQRA, ADV)

AND ;

 '  1  ~::(5'§s}1rvf1s:$IoNER 09 CENTRAL EXCISE

. " --w{Ai".l?EALS) N0. 15/ 1, 5TH FLOOR
 .  S.P.CQM.E?IA'§§X, LALBAGI4 ROAD,
1 "'BA1*J(£z'£i;€}'RE 27'.

 :2  ;asS1s*::§NT COMMISSOINER 012' SERVECE TAX

A mvzsrow 3, No.16] 1, Sm FLGOR
 ' '*-..$.P.COMPLEX, LALBAGH ROAD,
=  EIANGALORE 2?.
 RESPONDENTS

J ~ '(By Sri: N R BHASKAR, Sr, SYANDING case: FOR R1352)

THIS WP. FILED' PRAYING TO DIRECT THE
RESPONBENT Au'moRmss TO REFUND THE AMOUNTS

bk



MENTIONED IN ma cmms op' 
SETTING ASHTJEIQUASH THE 00002  A9900;-. 
No.27/2009 my 30.3.2009 VIBE ANNEX~;I)___i~SSU_ED_ :3?  

ma R1 AND E'I'C.   

THIS PETITION COMING ON i20R"£=R3L.fiEA;éir«:é :fI'u'_'}3'. 

GROUP, THIS DAY, THE cons? MAS;-'13'. 'ma FQ.:.;.:.g-w':N0; 
The petitioner cafmjcs   and

in the process though    tax under

Finance Act, .3.   through

T.R.-6 chalié  

D.9.t0 Amount Paid

SLNO   " "

1
  
.

1 2000000 . V 14.12.2005 2381272 2 200S--:00vv V 14.12.2005 1246075 2005'-05' .v 00.01.2000 2396592 _ ' 20ET&05~~. " 20.04.2006 841500 5 00.012000 107"7120 0 2000-07 09.12.2000 1030500 '? AA _ 200007 05.01.2007 26658372 TGTAL 1243899 I M -4- iaw. Since the amount eeliected l_?§j;f'"

Government is not at ali payable assessee this amount w0u}d.._4:esemVb'Ie'I. amount collected without a:;:tliio1i?.y '2aiﬁ:ﬁ'>._',A if Hence the amount by t.hex:_n7is nQt"V~%seI jrice '; "

tzix but in the nature deﬁﬁsjt Government. This; .issuee.,§1:xiS--bee;1 in the case of Cemmi;aeione_r cgf :VC."Ex,;'L,Qlkata~I Vs M.A.F'inanCial mg ":~:fe3;io1*ted in 2006(2) S:rjg.e350e§_r1'::~;:oL!:5:::; in the case of H'exece1nV Qeinenissioner of C.Ex., Jaipgy 'l:2Ge3{,1V5V6) E.fI...'I'.357 (Tri-

1)e1hi)%s§:1e'..;~gi,1§§<eMoiiésr1geIndia Pvt Ltd. Vs CCE, bangagore "~Hon'b§e High Court of Kamaia1:ae2eQo6(;2_ee;eeJ%' 3.1.31'. 90 {1»<;a;~.). 11: has held' " amounts are collected " _fi1T0i}£tQ1iSly as representing service tax, which " __eisV e1"1<v5t...ii1Vfo1§é:e, there is no bar to the return of 'A ,$i1ch_aﬁi<;:ints."

""--._Vl*i£;wever',..-- er: an erroneous assumption that Section 83 A Finance Act, 1994 provided application of the '1T'ef1tra,l Excise Act 1944, for short 'Act' to service tax A " Vmatters, relating to Iefund under Section 11-B pf the Jfi *6-

5. Section 3.1-8 provides for refuiod duty. Admittedly, the sums Awtizie '* petitioner is held to be a deposit ako[dm;;:,§* therefore, there was no necessity for' f,11ec~ ;ép'et;i'£i_o:;e:* to _ > have made a claim invoking 11.-"Ba Act: for refund. . L .

6. In tI16'Q_iIfCuli1StaIi(feS,. Commissioner of Central iEXoise""b§r ,a"~;§1ié';eo:11ce_p'£ion of law assumed that S€§Ctib1'i so as to decline the peﬁtioner's cizm ' V' of the amount in deposit, on the pref1iise"th.ai§: tI;_eVc1eim was beyono the period of '?he oi*deI'"i1npt1g11ed insofar as it relates iio for refund is unsustainable and is quashed; 'i._ W " 'T .. , c_.The*§§vrit petition is ordered accordingly. "The 21"' respondent is directed to refund %]efRs;o:,23,96,948/- (Rs.68,6-5,439 + R's.55,31,509) to the 7', e g i § W%..

.7- petitioner i3:)r%:hwi1:h, in any event within a period weeks from today. ; = -- :'_~ , '

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court