Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Chambal Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd. Versus C.C.E. Jaipur-I

2016 (4) TMI 845 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Rejection of refund claim - excess service tax paid on the transmission charges - Jurisdictional Service Tax authority competent to decide the refund application - Held that:- since the appellant in the capacity of recipient of service has filed the refund application before the Central Excise Authorities at Kota, the same is proper and maintainable under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Also, since the incidence of service tax has been borne by the appellant itself, the refund claim .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Fertilizers Coop. Ltd. [2014 (7) TMI 891 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT], by applying the same, recipient of the services can file the refund application claiming refund of excess service tax paid. - Decided in favour of appellant with consequential relief - Service Tax Appeal No. ST/1629/2011-ST[SM] - Final Order No. 51217/2016 - Dated:- 4-3-2016 - MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) For the Petitioner : Mr. Narender Singhvi (Advocate) For the Respondent : Mr. M. R. Sharma (DR) ORDER PER S. K. MOHANTY .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

erial, which the appellant procures from M/s Reliance Gas Transportation Infrastructure Ltd., Mumbai (RGTIL). Transmission charges for transportation of Natural gas are regulated by PNGRB. During the period April 2009 to May 2010, RGTIL supplied natural gas to the appellant at the rate of 68.56 MMBTU. Since natural gas is regulated and the price determined by the regulatory authority, the charges for the said period was finalized on 9.6.2010 by PNGRB @ 67.64 MMBTU. For adjusting the excess amoun .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

service tax paid on the transmission charges. The refund application was denied by both the authorities below on the ground that the service tax amount has not been paid by the appellant and the same has been paid by the service provider M/s RGTIL, and thus, the refund claim filed by the appellant is not maintainable. The other ground assigned for rejection of the refund application is that the appropriate authority for sanction of the refund amount is the service tax authorities having jurisdi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. To substantiate his stand that refund claim cannot be denied to the appellant, the Ld. Advocate has relied on the judgment of Hon ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax vs. Indian Farmer Fertilizers Coop. Ltd. [2014 35 STR 492 Albd] and also the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Ms. Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. vs Commr. of Customs and Central Excise [2014-VIL-539-CESTAT-DEL-ST]. 4. On the other hand, the Ld. DR, Sh. MR Sharma re .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of the appellant for the service charges received by it at a higher price. 7. The fact is not in dispute that excess service tax has been paid, for which refund application is maintainable under the statute. The dispute involved in this case relates to the Jurisdictional Service Tax authority, who is component to decide the refund application. Since, the appellant in the capacity of recipient of service has filed the refund application before the Central Excise Authorities at Kota, the same in m .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

paid to the supplier of goods which was ultimately deposited into the Government Exchequer. I find that both the issues arising out of the present dispute are squarely covered by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. (Supra). The relevant paragraph in the said decision are extracted herein below. 6. The fact that the recipient of the service is also entitled to file a claim for refund is no longer res-integra. The issue stand concluded by the Constitution Ben .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

is a registrant; or before the Commissionerate having authority over the provider of the service. That would be a matter of a legitimate choice for a claimant of refund. In this case, the appellant had initially filed a claim before the Delhi Commissionerate which rejected the same on the ground that it had no jurisdiction since the appellant was pursuing business outside its jurisdiction. The Bilaspur Commissionerate also rejected the refund claim on the ground that the provider of the 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

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

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

Go to Mobile Version