TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 845X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Government Exchequer. Therefore, as the issue is squarely covered by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. vs Commr. of Customs and Central Excise [2015 (9) TMI 1277 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], and by the decision 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 (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) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been borne by it, the appellant had filed the refund application before the Jurisdictional Service Tax Authorities, claiming refund of the excess 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 jurisdiction over the premises of the service provider and not the service receiver; that since the refund appli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 my opinion, is proper and maintainable under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (made applicable to service tax under Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994). 8. With regard to the observations of the authorities below that the appellant as a recipient of service is not entitled to file the refund application, I am of the view that si ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant was pursuing business outside its jurisdiction. The Bilaspur Commissionerate also rejected the refund claim on the ground that the provider of the service is not within its jurisdiction. The rejection by both Commissionerates is in my view unsustainable. 7. Since the appellant is the recipient of the service it is entitled to file a refund claim. Since the impugned order rejects the claim arbitrarily on the point of jurisdiction, a case is prima-facie made out for award of costs. However, the ld. DR has fairly conceded the position that the appellant is entitled to refund in totality the circumstances since the claim is found to be within the period of limitation and the appellant initially filed its refund claim before the Delhi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
