Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Piramal Enterprises Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Service Tax Mumbai

2016 (2) TMI 545 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Refund of service tax on the basis of credit note - value of services provided (sharing of expenses) earlier got reduced as per the mutual agreement - whether there has been excess payment of tax and whether the bar of unjust enrichment will arise in relation to such excess payment of tax. - The original authority rejected the claim for refund on the ground that such a reduction did not appear to have extended beyond the second component of the compensation, i.e. the share in expenses, in the se .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ax deducted at source is borne out by the lesser amounts entered in the ledger and the bank statements. We find no flaw in this contention and there is no counter by Revenue that can contest this.

Regarding unjust enrichment - Re-negotiation after initial payments does not, in any way, weaken the claim of the appellant because the fact of reduced net consideration is incontrovertible; the transaction does not extend to a chain beyond the appellant and M/s Nicholas Piramal and therefor .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai Zone-I concurring with rejection of the refund claim of ₹ 36,10,050/- by the Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax, Division III, Mumbai. 2. The appellant had entered into an agreement with M/s Nicholas Piramal India Ltd on 29 th April 2005 by which, in return for services, the appellant would be compensated @0.50% of turnover besides sharing in the expenditure incurred by the appellant for rendering services as per agreed .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

September 2007, agreed for reduction in charges by ₹ 2,93,50,000/- for the period covered by the two debit notes issued earlier. Accordingly, a credit note for ₹ 3,29,60,050/- dated 10 th October 2007 was issued by the appellant. On the service tax component covered in the credit note, the appellant sought refund on account of over payment of tax. 4. The original authority rejected the claim for refund on the ground that such a reduction did not appear to have extended beyond the sec .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tax) collected from M/s Nicholas Piramal India Ltd for which corporate service charge' ledger account, service tax ledger account and bank account statement were submitted. The first appellate authority noted that debtor's ledger account had not been made available for confirmation of the claim, that the appellant had received amounts of ₹ 35179262 and ₹ 34223912 in their bank account for the relevant period which did not correspond to the amounts in the debit notes, and that .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

, reiterated the contents of the appeal and asserted that the ledger amounts would not match the debit notes or the credit notes owing to the statutory requirement to deduct tax at source for which certificates were produced. Further, decisions of the Tribunal in Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax v. Standard Chartered Bank [2006 (3) STR 751 (Tri-Bang.)] in support of the contention that tax is leviable only on actual receipts, Shiva Analyticals (I) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

te that claimant for refund has merely to show that incidence of duty has been borne by him were adduced by him. 6. Learned Authorised Representative cited the decision of the Tribunal in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kochi 2014 (314) ELT 744 (Tri.-Bang.) to claim that credit notes issued after the event are not sufficient to show that duty burden has not been passed on. 7. The short point for consideration by us is whether there has been excess payment of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version