Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (2.94 seconds)
Documents citing Bt India Private Limited vs Union Of India & Ors. on 1 December, 2021

M /S Amit Exports vs Union Of India & Ors. on 22 November, 2024

73. Subsequent to ITC Limited, this Court in BT (India) Private Limited, v. Union of India and another28 had dealt with a challenge to the rejection of refund claims and the self-assessment done by the petitioners therein, albeit in the context of unutilised Central Value Added Tax29 credit. While dealing with the challenge raised therein, the Court upon noticing the decision in ITC Limited in extenso had ultimately come to render the following pertinent findings:-
Delhi High Court Cites 68 - Cited by 0 - Y Varma - Full Document

Designco vs Union Of India & Ors. on 22 November, 2024

73. Subsequent to ITC Limited, this Court in BT (India) Private Limited, v. Union of India and another28 had dealt with a challenge to the rejection of refund claims and the self-assessment done by the petitioners therein, albeit in the context of unutilised Central Value Added Tax29 credit. While dealing with the challenge raised therein, the Court upon noticing the decision in ITC Limited in extenso had ultimately come to render the following pertinent findings:-
Delhi High Court Cites 68 - Cited by 0 - Y Varma - Full Document

M/S Sharma International vs Union Of India & Ors. on 22 November, 2024

73. Subsequent to ITC Limited, this Court in BT (India) Private Limited, v. Union of India and another28 had dealt with a challenge to the rejection of refund claims and the self-assessment done by the petitioners therein, albeit in the context of unutilised Central Value Added Tax29 credit. While dealing with the challenge raised therein, the Court upon noticing the decision in ITC Limited in extenso had ultimately come to render the following pertinent findings:-
Delhi High Court Cites 68 - Cited by 0 - Y Varma - Full Document

International Merchandising Company vs Gurugram on 30 May, 2025

In view of our above discussion, we find that the ratio of judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in BT (India) Pvt Ltd (supra)'s case clearly applies in the present case. Therefore, by following the ratio of the said judgment, we are of the considered 12 ST/52250/2015 view that the appellant is not entitled to refund; accordingly, we uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeal of the appellant.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Wave One Private Limited vs Delhi East on 25 August, 2025

3. While rebutting these submissions, learned Authorized Representative for the department has submitted that refund claim has not been rejected merely being barred by time but also for the 3 2022 (3) TMI 49 - CESTAT New Delhi 4 2022 (5) TMI 651-CESTAT New Delhi 5 2023 (1) TMI 252 - CESTAT Mumbai 6 Dated 20.01.2024 CESTAT New Delhi 7 Dated 31.10.2023 CESTAT New Delhi 5 ST/50261-50262/2025 reason that the appellant has been unjustly enriched. It is submitted that since the refund claim has been filed in terms of Section 11B of Central Excise Act it should have been filed within one year of the payment of service tax. Apparently, the claim was filed much later hence there is no infirmity rejecting the claim on the ground of limitation. Learned Departmental Representative has also relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ITC Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata 8 and BT (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors9. To impress upon that the assessment order has to be modified prior filing the refund claim of the amount of tax paid. Since the assessment has not been modified, the refund claim is not sustainable. The appeal is prayed to be dismissed.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Wave Megacity Centre Private Limited vs Commissioner Of Central Excise & ... on 27 August, 2025

10. The issue of refund in similar circumstances and the contentions raised by the learned Counsel have been considered in series of decisions by different learned Single Members, as referred above. The consistent view taken in all these decisions is that refund claim of service tax paid under the existing law (Central Excise Act, 1944) in respect of services not provided shall be disposed of under the existing law and has to be paid in cash, however such refund is subject to the provisions of sub-Section (2) of section 11B of CEA, which means that it is only in case of unjust enrichment that the refund amount can be denied. The refund application cannot be rejected on the ground of time bar under Section 11 B. The learned Single Member has taken support from the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh Vs. M/s. Doaba Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd., Jalandhar 16 and concluded that there is no reason to invoke section 11B and the amount needs to be refunded, notwithstanding anything, contrary in the erstwhile law. The observations have also been made that the relevant date would not be the date of payment of service tax by the appellant but the date of issuance of credit notes to its customers subsequent to cancellation of agreements for providing construction service between those customers and the appellant. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Road Infrastructure Development ... vs Jaipur I.. on 13 February, 2026

12.1 The Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the rejection of refund claim vis-à-vis the service tax paid for constructing parking lots for the reason that the requisite documents/invoices has not 13 been submitted and that incidence of tax has been passed on by the appellant. However, held that the refund claim vis-à-vis construction for Eklavya Model Residential School, is not liable to be rejected being covered under Notification No.25/2012. It is observed that the refund claim has been filed under Section 102 of the Finance Act incorporated in terms of Section 159 of the Finance Act, 2016. The said section has considered Section 102 as the special provision for exemption in certain cases relating to construction of governmental buildings. The objective of this section is to extend service tax exemption retrospectively for the services specified therein. The CBEC vide Circular No. 334/8/2016 dated 29.02.2016 has clarified that the relevant services provided to the government during the period under the contracts entered into prior 01.03.2015 shall remain exempted from service tax. Section 102(2) (as reproduced above) has used word 'shall" making it mandatory for the department to refund such service tax which has been collected but which would not have been so collected as the exemption would never been withdrawn. The intention of legislature is ample cleared that the refund under the said Section 102 is absolutely different from the refund under Section 27 of the Customs Act or Section 11B of Central Excise Act. This observation is sufficient to hold that the decision in BT (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and ITC Ltd. (supra) is not applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the present case. All relevant documents, were admittedly produced by the appellant. The contract for construction of multilevel parking at Nayi Sadak Jodhpur is denied to be executed prior 01.03.2015. However, it is observed from the show cause notice itself that the said contract 14 was initially entered into on 05.09.2013. However, it got merely revised in the Year 2016.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next