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. PSL Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Puducherry

2017 (8) TMI 1119 - CESTAT CHENNAI

Refund claim - service tax paid erroneously under GTA services - rejection on the ground that the material evidence by way of documents such as lorry vouchers / consignment notes etc. in support of refund claim is not furnished - Held that: - The appellant has to maintain the accounts properly and the documents supporting the transactions should also be proper. The process of refund sanction cannot be such in a manner of conduct of investigation by the department as in cases where demand of serv .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ST/93/2008 - 41674/2017 - Dated:- 8-8-2017 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Shri Raghavan Ramabhadran, Advocate for the Appellant Shri K.P. Muralidharan, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Per: Bench The appellants are aggrieved by the rejection of refund claim of the service tax paid erroneously under GTA services. 1.1 The appellants are engaged in the manufacture, inter alia, of spiral welded MS pipes falling under sub-heading 7304 and .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r coal tar coating and polythelene coating of bare pipes was accepted by IOCL on 28.6.2004. On such day of the contract, there was no service tax liability on the activity either under goods transport agency or under business auxiliary service. 2. As per the terms and conditions of letter of acceptance the appellant have to take delivery of pipes from Nagathone (Maharashtra) pipe mill of M/s. Maharashtra Seamless Ltd. for Part I and II and from Bahdurgarh (Haryana) pipe mill of M/s. Surya Roshin .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

The goods transport agency service was not taxable till 1.1.2005. However, the appellant having registered under the category of business auxiliary service for the purpose of payment of service tax in respect of coal tar coating on the pipes and thus paid a sum of ₹ 67,81,863/- as service tax and a further sum of ₹ 1,35,637/- as educational cess totaling to ₹ 69,17,500/- on 2.12.2004 for the period from 10.9.2004 to 30.11.2004. 3. Though the appellants were not liable to pay 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

h the appellant filed detailed reply. However, a show cause notice dated 23.3.2006 was issued to the appellant proposing to reject the refund claim on the ground that the material evidence by way of documents such as lorry vouchers / consignment notes etc. in support of refund claim is not furnished. The appellant defended the show cause notice and after due process of law, the original authority rejected the refund claim vide order dated 28.9.2006. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

eas Goods Transportation Agency services was not taxable. Appellant mistakenly paid service tax on the transportation charges also. Thus they are eligible for refund of service tax paid on transportation charges. In order to avoid the dispute with regard to unjust enrichment, the appellant has limited the claim of refund on the service tax applicable to inward transport only. That they did not claim refund of service tax on the outward transportation charges. That these facts are undisputed. ii) .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

proof for payment of transportation cost. That this question was addressed by the appellants by furnishing the work sheets. Though freight charges were not shown separately, the cost of transportation is very clearly identifiable from the bills of the transporter. That assuming the transport bills were not available, the entire amount paid cannot relate to Business Auxiliary services (coating service) which is clear from the contract. The appellants supported their claim, by producing bills 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

garh to their factory at Vaiyavoor. Thus the contract awarded by IOC clearly stipulated the transportation of bare pipes from Nagathone and Bahadurgarh to their factory by appellants. Accordingly appellant have engaged Supreme Road Carriers for transporting the bare pipes from Nagathone and Bahadurgarh to their factory at Vaiyavoor. The rate of transportation of the bare pipes for 10" pipes, 12" pipes and 14" pipes from Nagathone/Bahadurgarh has been clearly indicated vide the con .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hallan cum invoice is issued by Maharashtra Seamless Limited for the pipes dispatched to PSL Limited and it is transported by Supreme Road Carriers under cover of a consignment note and challan. In this case also consignment note refers to the actual weight and length of the bare pipes being transported by Supreme Road Carriers from Nagathone to the Vaiyavoor Factory premises of PSL Limited. The bills are raised periodically by Supreme Road Carriers with reference to the number of trailors trans .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

act that the amount paid is inclusive of works contract tax and outward freight. This has to be excluded to arrive at the basic rate and accordingly the basic rate has been indicated. For each of the invoice copies placed on file if these two elements are removed from the contract price it would clearly tally with the basic rate shown in the worksheet. This is explained as under: 1 Invoice No.1825 dated 4-11-2004 Quantity 308.490 mts. Invoice value Rs.131417.00 Contract price per metre ₹ 4 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nce = Basic price ₹ 384 Basic amount in the worksheet (308.660 mtr x ₹ 384) ₹ 118535 3 Invoice No.1801 dated 2-11-2004 Quantity 254.250 mts. Invoice value Rs.115175.00 Contract price per metre ₹ 453 Less Works contract tax at 4.2% (453/104.2x 4.2) ₹ 18 Invoice rate (basic) ₹ 435 Less Outward freight charges ₹ 32 Balance = Basic price ₹ 403 Basic amount in the worksheet (254.250 mtr x ₹ 403) ₹ 102463 4 Invoice No.1826 dated 4-11-2004 Qua .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

21 Invoice rate (basic) ₹ 492 Less Outward freight charges ₹ 32 Balance = Basic price ₹ 460 Basic amount in the worksheet (218.370 mtr x ₹ 460) ₹ 100450 Cost of transportation of bare pipe has been clearly identified and conclusively established. (vi) Thus the observation of the adjudicating authority that the basic rate shown is less than the contract price by about 10% and that appellant has not explained the same is erroneous. Further, that this was not alleged .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Paper Mills Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, 2004 (172) E.L.T. 493 (Tri.). 5. Countering the above arguments, the Learned AR Shri K.P. Muralidharan reiterated, the findings in the impugned order. He submitted that on perusal of clause 8.1.0 of the contract, it is seen that contractor will be exclusively liable for payment of all taxer. So also it is seen that the contract with M/s. IOC is an all-inclusive contract. The adjudicating authority after verification and calling for clarificatio .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the above mentioned lesser Basic Rate. Further, the payment term is that 90% of invoice amount shall be paid against receipt and acceptance of coated pipe at the stock pile and that balance 10% will be paid upon lifting of coated pipes by pipeline laying contractor. This had resulted in improper representation of facts at the time of personal hearing. In order to ascertain the freight element to entertain the claim, the assesse was given several opportunities to identify the cost of transportati .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the order-in-original, the refund claim was rejected. The appellants have not shown the freight charges separately and the refund claim has been arrived by applying a method/formula to arrive at the transportation cost of bare pipes from the total value of the contract. In such situation as the appellants have not been able to properly point out and quantify. The excess tax paid, the refund claim has been rightly rejected. 7. Heard both sides. 8. The undisputed facts are: The appellant has paid .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

pe mill of M/s. Maharashtra Seamless Ltd. for Part-I & II (14" OD & 12.75" OD) and from Bahdurgarh (Haryana) pipe mill of M/s. Surya Roshini Ltd. For Part-III (10.75" OD), transportation to coating plant, unloading, handling and storing of bare pipe in coating plant, Coating of Pipes, arranging land for stockpile at Asanoor, handling and storage of coated pipes in coating plant, transportation of coated pipe from Coating Plant to stockpile, unloading and stacking of coated .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

bare pipes and outward handling transportation of coated pipes. The appellants thus claim refund of that portion of the service tax which is paid excess by them contending that such service tax is applicable to the transportation charges. They do not dispute the payment of service tax made in respect of activity of coating of pipes which falls under Business Auxiliary Services. 11. As put forward in the contentions of the appellant, the Learned Counsel Shri Raghavan Ramabhadran has strenuously .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the Range officer was called for several times. There are series of letters issued to the appellant requesting for clarifications. The appellant has given reply to such queries. The Range officer reported that appellant had paid sum of ₹ 69,17,500/- on 30.11.2004 as service tax and that this was paid on total value of services, and the same was paid from their Cenvat account under protest. Since the Range officers verification report was not specific as to how the appellant had worked out .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e of pipe. ii) Basis of calculation of Service Tax was arrived at by multiplying the quantity shown in the Annexure to invoices by the rate. iii) Basis of arriving at the Freight was by multiplying the quantity shown in the annexure to invoices by the freight per metre. He had also submitted copies of sample of invoices, transporter's bills and relevant extracts of the Letter of Acceptance PLM/CTMPL/03/01 dated 28.06.2004 of M/s. IOCL and Rate Table. In spite of repeated queries and clarific .....

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