Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.19 seconds)Section 102 in Finance Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
The Finance Act, 2018
Finance Act, 1999
Corporation Bank vs M/S Saraswati Abharansala & Anr on 19 November, 2008
6. While rebutting these submissions, learned counsel for
respondent submitted the chronology of dates to clarify that the
services were provided to the Government of India which were
declared non-taxable retrospectively vide Section 102(3) as got
5
incorporated vide Finance Act, 2016. The amount in question no
more remained, the amount of tax in nature. Hence Government is
not allowed to retain the amount collection whereof is/becomes
without authority of law. Principle of limitation will not apply to
such amount. Refund of said amount has rightly been allowed.
Learned counsel has also relied upon the decision in the case of
Corporation Bank Vs. Saraswati Abharansala 1 . With these
submissions appeal filed by the department is prayed to be
dismissed.
M/S Mdp Infra (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner Customs Central Excise ... on 14 January, 2019
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MDP Infra
(India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner 4 has held as follows:
M/S. Sunrays Engineers Pvt. Ltd. vs Commnr. Of Central Excise, Jaipur on 20 March, 2015
9. We observe that the amount in question became refundable
pursuant to Notification No. 6/2015 dated 14.5.2016 with reference
to Section 102(3) of the Finance Act, 2016. The notification itself
prescribes time limit of six months w.e.f. 14.05.2016. Admittedly,
the refund claim is filed beyond said six months. Still has been
sanctioned contrary to the mandate of said notification. The
exemption notifications have to be read strictly as held by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Sunrays Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
CCE2.
1