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 →

M/s. Chambal Fertilisers and Chemical Ltd. Versus C.C.E. & S.T. - Indore

2017 (1) TMI 549 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Refund claim - reduction in transportation charges - reverse charge mechanism - unjust enrichment - Time limitation - section 11 B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - denial on the ground that the appellant, being the service recipient, has no locus standi to claim a refund as it has not paid service tax in the Government Account - Held that: - The applicability of Section 11B ibid for claiming refund of Central Excise duty/Service Tax is not restricted only to manufacturer/service provider. The s .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n the capacity of recipient of service, can file refund application before the authorities having jurisdiction over the service recipient or before the jurisdictional authorities of the service provider under Section 11B ibid. - The excess paid service tax has been borne by the appellant and its incidence has not been passed on to any other person. Therefore, the legal presumption contained in Section 11B ibid has been rebutted in this case and the appellants refund claim is not hit by the d .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tilizers and is registered with both the Central Excise and Service Tax Department. The appellant receives services of transportation of natural gas through pipeline. The transportation charges of natural gas are regulated by the Central Government through the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board of India (for short, 'PNGRB'), in terms of the PNGRB (Determination of Natural Gas Pipeline Tariff) Regulations, 2008. Price towards the transportation charges are provisional and are revi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

0,30,106/- respectively, both dated 20.09.2010, to the appellant towards the reduction in the transportation charges for the relevant period. However, the amount of service tax on such differential amount was not refunded by GAIL to the appellant. 1.2 In this background, the appellant, being the service recipient and borne the incidence of service tax, had filed the refund application for ₹ 2,04,21,679/- on 17.01.2011 before the Assistant Commissioner of Service tax, Kota. The said refund .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ling aggrieved with the impugned order, the appellant has filed appeal before this Tribunal, which was listed as Appeal No. ST/3853/2002. 1.3 In respect of the same refund amount, the appellant filed another application on 24.02.2011 before the Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax, Gwalior i.e. the jurisdictional authority for GAIL. The said claim was denied by the Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 25.10.2011. Appeal against the said order was upheld by the ld. Commissioner(Appeals), Cent .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

AIL in the Government Account; that the reduction in transportation charges is a matter between GAIL and the appellant and the same has no relation with reduction of service tax liability. Against the impugned order dated 27.03.2012, the appellant has preferred appeal before this Tribunal, which was listed as Appeal No. ST/1805/2012. 2. Shri B.L Narshiman, the ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that a service recipient is entitled to claim refund of service tax under Section 11B .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

has also been accepted by the Department in the SCN dated 03.03.2011. With regard to filing of refund application before wrong jurisdictional service tax authorities, the ld. Advocate submitted that the appellant being a recipient of service and having borne the service tax liability, had the option either to file the refund application before the Commissionerate under whose jurisdiction it pursues its taxable activities; or, before the Commissionerate having authority over the provider of servi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

be construed as the date of computation of the limitation period inasmuch as finalization of the transportation charges and actual liability on that count was known on the said date. Since the refund application was filed on 17.01.2011, which is within the stipulated time of one year from the date of such finalization, the same is within the time limit prescribed under Section 11 B ibid. To support such stand, the ld. Advocate has placed reliance on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of C .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

urt, in the case of Commissioner - Vs. - Virudhnagar Textile Mills Ltd., repored in 2008 (230) ELT 411 (Mad.) and also the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Commissioner - Vs. - Sankar Printing Mills, 2015 (321) ELT 295 (Tri.-Del.) and Eveready Industries India - Vs. - Commissioner, 2015 (323) ELT 612 (Tri.-Del.). 3. On the other hand, Shri Govind Dixit, the ld. A.R. appearing for the Revenue reiterated the findings recorded in the impugned order and further submits that the test of unjus .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

x/duty had not been passed on by him to any other person. Thus, in absence on any stipulation contained in the statutory provisions, the service recipient is well entitled to claim refund of service tax paid by him to the service provider. With regard to the issue, as to whether, the service recipient can claim refund of service tax, the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, in the case of Indian Farmers Fertilizers Coop Limited (supra), have ruled in affirmative. The relevant paragraph is extracted .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

exist in Section 11B ibid, limiting the filing of refund claim either in Commissionerate having jurisdiction over service provider or that having jurisdiction over service recipient. In such a case, the appellant is entitled to file refund application before any of these authorities. In this regard, the Tribunal in the case of Jindal Steel & Power Limited (supra) has held as under:- 6. The fact that the recipient of the service is also entitled to file a claim for refund is no longer res in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

whose jurisdiction it pursues its taxable activities, business or 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 rejecte .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

-claimant is only required to prove that the tax amount was collected from him. In the instant case, it is evident from the invoices that GAIL had charged service tax from the appellant at the provisional price, which was at the higher side and upon finalization of the price, had issued the credit notes for the differential price. It is also evident from the records that GAIL had deposited the service tax, collected from the appellant into the Government exchequer and had not refunded the servic .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ave been issued only for the difference in the base value of service i.e. the difference between the initial tariff collected by GAIL and provisional initial pipeline transportation tariff approved by PNGRB. 7. Since there has been a reduction in the value of taxable service on account of the credit notes issued by GAIL and since the service tax in relation to the initial tariff has been collected from the various recipients and deposited by GAIL with the Government, persons who have borne the i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ot;Loans and Advances" as "Receivable-Govt./Statutory Bodies". Such fact is also evident from the certificate dated 12.01.2011 issued by M/s Ritu G.P. Das, Chartered Accountants. Thus, the above established beyond any shadow of doubt that the excess paid service tax has been borne by the appellant and its incidence has not been passed on to any other person. Therefore, the legal presumption contained in Section 11B ibid has been rebutted in this case and the appellants refund clai .....

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