Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Ambuja Cement Ltd.

Commissioner of Central Excise vs Ambuja Cement Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Jun 19, 2006

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/42907

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/42907
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: S Kang, Vice-
Decided On: Jun 19, 2006
Subject: Service Tax

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Service Tax

Key legal issue: Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Central Excise

Respondent

Ambuja Cement Ltd.

Excerpt

1. the revenue filed this application for condoning the delay of approximately four months. the initial appeal was filed through speed post. thereafter revenue enquired from the registry and it was informed that no appeal was received in the registry. subsequently, the present appeal is filed. in these circumstances, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.2. the revenue also filed the application for condoning the delay vide which the refund amount of rs. 42,582/- was sanctioned. the contention of the respondent is that they had paid the service tax whereas the liability to pay service tax lies on foreign company who provided the services and whose office is in india. as the applicant had wrongly paid the service tax, therefore, they are entitled for the refund.keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the registry is directed to list this appeal in the week starting from 3-7-2006. in the meantime, operation of the impugned order is stayed.

Full Judgment

1. The Revenue filed this application for condoning the delay of approximately four months. The initial appeal was filed through Speed Post. Thereafter Revenue enquired from the registry and it was informed that no appeal was received in the registry. Subsequently, the present appeal is filed. In these circumstances, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

2. The Revenue also filed the application for condoning the delay vide which the refund amount of Rs. 42,582/- was sanctioned. The contention of the respondent is that they had paid the service tax whereas the liability to pay service tax lies on foreign company who provided the services and whose office is in India. As the applicant had wrongly paid the service tax, therefore, they are entitled for the refund.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the registry is directed to list this appeal in the week starting from 3-7-2006. In the meantime, operation of the impugned order is stayed.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Commissioner of Central Excise vs Ambuja Cement Ltd. Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge S Kang, Vice-