Abhishek Raja "Ram"

@abhishekrajaram

5 days ago

ā€¢View on Twitter

š—–š—˜š—¦š—§š—”š—§ š—”š—µš—ŗš—²š—±š—®š—Æš—®š—± š—„š˜‚š—¹š—¶š—»š—“ š—¼š—» š—™š—¶š—¹š—¶š—»š—“ š—„š—²š—³š˜‚š—»š—± š—Ŗš—¶š˜š—µš—¶š—» š—Ÿš—¶š—ŗš—¶š˜š—®š˜š—¶š—¼š—» š—£š—²š—暝—¶š—¼š—± šŸ“¢ š—§š—µš—² š—§š—暝—¶š—Æš˜‚š—»š—®š—¹ š—µš—²š—¹š—±: "The one-year limitation for filing a refund claim does not apply if the duty was paid under protest."

šŸ” š—™š—®š—°š˜š˜€: š—–š—¼š—ŗš—½š—®š—»š˜†: M/s Erweka India š—œš˜€š˜€š˜‚š—²: Whether the one-year limitation for filing a refund applies when the duty is paid under protest? š—”š—°š˜š—¶š˜ƒš—¶š˜š˜†: The appellant, an exporter, paid service tax under protest, believing their services were not taxable. Despite this, their refund claim was rejected as time-barred.

āš–ļø š—š˜‚š—±š—“š—²š—ŗš—²š—»š˜: The Tribunal ruled that under Section 11B(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the one-year limitation for filing a refund claim does not apply if duty is paid under protest. The protest letter from 25.06.2007 was valid and should have been considered. The appeal was remanded for reconsideration.

šŸ“œ š—–š—®š˜€š—² š—œš—»š—³š—¼š—暝—ŗš—®š˜š—¶š—¼š—»: š—§š—¶š˜š—¹š—²: M/s Erweka India vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & ST, Ahmedabad š—¢š—暝—±š—²š—æ š——š—®š˜š—²: 23 March 2023 šŸ“œ This ruling clarifies that if service tax is paid under protest, the one-year time limit for filing a refund claim does not apply.

More from @abhishekrajaramReply on Twitter

Page created with TweetHunter

Write your own