Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2021 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (3) TMI 786 - CESTAT BANGALORERefund of service tax paid - time limitation - quarter April 2017 to June 2017 as per Rule 6(1A) of Service Tax Rules, vide challan Nos. 1420 and 9589 in June 2017 - HELD THAT:- Following the introduction of GST w.e.f. 01.07.2017, the appellant on 10.01.2018 filed a refund claim of ₹ 3,79,85,793/- being excess advance tax lying to their credit in terms of transitional provisions in Section 142 of the CGST Act 2017 deposited as service tax in advance under Rule 6(1A) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 - as per the decision in the case of FLUID CONTROLS PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMR. OF C. EX. & S.T., PUNE-I [2018 (3) TMI 1857 - CESTAT MUMBAI] and decision in the case of R.S. CHEMICALS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NOIDA [2017 (4) TMI 884 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD], time bar of Section 11B(1) of the Central Excise Act is not applicable to advance/deposits, wrong remittance of tax not payable and other payments which are not in the nature of taxes or duties. The other ground for rejection of the claim was that the appellant has not given intimation of advance deposit of ₹ 15,00,000/- as required under Rule 6(1A) of Service Tax Rules, 1994. This issue has been considered by various Benches of the Tribunal and has been consistently held to be a procedural formality and merely non-observance of the procedure laid down in the said Rule cannot be a ground for denial of substantive benefit - as per Section 142(1) of CGST Act which provides for cash refund in situations specified in Section 11B(2) of the Central Excise Act and the appellant’s case is squarely covered by Clause B of proviso to Section 11B(2) which provides for cash refund of balance in account current. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|