2025 (7) TMI 344 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of tax paid in excess - rejection on the ground that recipient of service and exported service is not eligible in terms of section 11B of Central Excise Act 1944 as made applicable to Finance Act 1994 - HELD THAT - It is quite surprising that the first appellate authority has taken it upon itself to venture into he nature of the service and to hold that the appellant was not beneficiary of service exported from India considering that the original authority was not just brief but tersely so in the peremptory rejection of claim for refund. The refund provisions in Central Excise Act 1944 as applied to Finance Act 1994 is abundantly clear; The claim for refund was not the vested right of an assessee but of any person and the original authority appeared to have opted to dispose off the claim solely on this ground and without reference to the manner in which the appellant herein was not person within the meaning of section 11B of Central Excise Act 1944. It is clear from the refund provisions that a claim supported by documents would have to be sanctioned and remitted to The Fund if tax was collected in excess. The original authority had not determined whether tax was collected in excess or there was a ground for holding that the tax liability was discharged in full. The order of the first appellate authority taking the place of the original authority. Had not considered these aspects and could not have without issuing a notice to the applicant. It would appear that the issues had been decided by the lower authorities without placing the appellant on notice of any deficiency but impeded processing of claim for refund - it is appropriate to set aside the impugned order and restore the application before the original authority for a fresh disposal after considering the legal issues and factual circumstances brought out by the appellant herein - Appeal disposed off.

Summary

The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal are:

1. Whether a claim for refund of service tax paid in excess can be rejected on the ground that the claimant is not the 'recipient of service' or 'assessee' under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as applied to service tax by the Finance Act, 1994.

2. Whether a foreign company, not registered in India and not having paid service tax directly, can claim refund of service tax paid by its Indian representative on exported services.

3. Whether the service rendered qualifies as an export of service under the Export of Service Rules, 2005, particularly with reference to receipt of payment in convertible foreign exchange.

4. The proper procedure and person entitled to file a refund claim under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as applied to service tax.

Issue 1: Eligibility to Claim Refund under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944

The legal framework revolves around Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as made applicable to service tax by Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. This provision permits refund of tax paid in excess by 'any person' and is not strictly limited to an 'assessee'. The appellant contended that the term 'any person' includes entities other than registered assessees, relying on the principle of 'unjust enrichment' which mandates refund to the party who has borne the incidence of tax, irrespective of registration status.

The appellant relied on authoritative precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in Oswal Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, which clarified that refund provisions are designed to prevent unjust enrichment and are not confined to registered taxpayers. Further reliance was placed on Tribunal decisions emphasizing entitlement of the actual tax burden bearer to claim refund.

The Tribunal observed that the original authority had summarily rejected the refund claim solely on the ground that the appellant was not registered and had not paid service tax directly, without examining whether tax was in fact collected in excess or whether the appellant had borne the tax incidence. The first appellate authority compounded this error by delving into the nature of services and eligibility without issuing any notice or opportunity to the appellant.

The Tribunal held that the claim for refund is vested in 'any person' and that the authorities erred in restricting the refund claim to registered assessees only. The Tribunal emphasized that the original authority failed to determine whether tax was collected in excess or whether the appellant was entitled to refund, which is a crucial factual inquiry.

Issue 2: Claim by Foreign Company Not Registered in India and Not Having Paid Service Tax

The appellant, a Singapore-incorporated company, had appointed an Indian representative to collect payments from local distributors and remit the amounts in convertible foreign exchange after deducting commission. The Indian representative had discharged service tax liability based on the value of remittances, effectively taxing exports.

The authorities held that since the appellant was not registered in India and had not paid service tax, the refund claim was not maintainable. They further observed that the refund claim should have been filed by the Indian representative who discharged the tax liability, not by the foreign appellant.

The Tribunal disagreed with this narrow interpretation. It noted that the appellant's location outside India does not exclude it from being a 'person' entitled to claim refund under Section 11B. The Tribunal underscored that the refund provisions apply to the whole of India except Jammu and Kashmir, but do not exclude foreign entities per se. The key question is whether the appellant bore the tax incidence and whether tax was paid in excess.

The Tribunal found that the authorities had not properly examined these aspects and had prematurely rejected the claim on jurisdictional and registration grounds without due process.

Issue 3: Qualification of Service as Export of Service under Export of Service Rules, 2005

The Export of Service Rules, 2005, define conditions under which a taxable service qualifies as export of service, including the requirement that payment for such service is received in convertible foreign exchange by the service provider.

The first appellate authority held that the appellant failed to demonstrate that payment was made to the Indian representative in convertible foreign exchange, as no Bank Realization Certificate was submitted. Consequently, the refund claim was held inadmissible on this ground.

The Tribunal noted that the first appellate authority had ventured into the nature of the service and payment mechanism without affording the appellant an opportunity to be heard or to produce evidence. It observed that such factual and legal determinations should be made after due notice and examination of all relevant documents.

The Tribunal did not conclusively decide the export service qualification but remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

Issue 4: Proper Procedure and Person Entitled to File Refund Claim

The authorities contended that the refund claim should have been filed by the Indian representative who paid the service tax, not by the foreign appellant. This was based on the proviso to Section 11B and the principle that only the person who paid the tax can claim refund.

The appellant argued that the refund provisions allow 'any person' to claim refund and that the real party in interest is the one who bore the tax incidence. The appellant also contended that the Indian representative was merely a collecting agent and that the ultimate burden of tax lay on the appellant.

The Tribunal found that the authorities had not properly considered these contentions or the factual matrix. It emphasized that the refund claim must be adjudicated on merits after considering the identity of the person who bore the tax incidence and the actual payment of tax. The Tribunal held that the authorities' rigid approach was inconsistent with the statutory scheme and principles of equity.

Conclusions

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and directed the original authority to reconsider the refund claim afresh, after due notice to the appellant and examination of all relevant legal and factual issues, including whether tax was paid in excess, the identity of the person who bore the tax incidence, and whether the service qualifies as export of service under the Export of Service Rules.

Significant Holdings and Legal Reasoning

"The refund provisions in Central Excise Act, 1944, as applied to Finance Act, 1994 is abundantly clear; The claim for refund was not the vested right of an assessee but of 'any person' ... a claim supported by documents would have to be sanctioned and remitted to 'The Fund' if tax was collected in excess."

"The original authority had not determined whether tax was collected in excess or there was a ground for holding that the tax liability was discharged in full. The order of the first appellate authority, taking the place of the original authority, had not considered these aspects and, could not have, without issuing a notice to the applicant."

"It is clear from the refund provisions that the proper person to file the refund claim is the person who has paid the tax or borne the incidence thereof, and this determination requires a factual inquiry rather than a mechanical rejection on registration or location grounds."

The Tribunal established that the right to claim refund under Section 11B is not confined to registered assessees but extends to 'any person' who has borne the incidence of tax and paid it in excess. It emphasized the principle of preventing unjust enrichment and the necessity of procedural fairness in adjudicating refund claims. The Tribunal also highlighted that the Export of Service Rules require proper evidentiary support to establish payment in convertible foreign exchange but that such issues must be examined after due notice and opportunity to the claimant.