Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.29 seconds)
Vodafone Mobile Services Limited vs Service Tax - Delhi on 24 July, 2018 cites

Vodafone Cellular Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 4 August, 2015

6. Learned DR, while rebutting these arguments, has submitted that the decision of Mumbai Tribunal in appellant's own case, titled as Vodafone Cellular Ltd vs. CCE, Pune 2014 (34) STR 890 (Tri.-Mum.) has been decided against the appellant on the aspect of limitation. It is impressed upon that as per Section 83 of the Finance Act, 5 ST/55322/2014-CU(DB) the Provision 11B (CEA) has been followed. Hence, irrespective there is no time limit prescribed under the Notification of 19.05.2005, the period of one year is the time limit prescribed for filing the Refund Claims. Since two of the six Refund Claims have been filed beyond the period of one year, those have rightly been rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals). The order is impressed upon to have no infirmity. The appeal is prayed to be rejected.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 5 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Everest Flavours Ltd vs The Union Of India Through The ... on 25 January, 2016

We notice that provision of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1994 which deals with excise duty, has been made 9 ST/55322/2014-CU(DB) applicable for Service Tax vide Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. This would imply that the time limit of one year from the payment of tax for filing of refund claim would apply in respect of Service Tax refund also. Irrespective, there is no time limit set out in the respective notifications, it is otherwise the settled position of law that even if a law is silent on the time limit applicable, a reasonable time limited has to be read into the law. The decision of the Hon'ble High Court (Mumbai) in the case of Everest Flavours Ltd. vs. Union of India 2012 (282) ELT 481 (Tri.-Mum.) is being relied upon.
Bombay High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 11 - G S Patel - Full Document
1