9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the requirement of pre-deposit of an alleged erroneous refund, the applicability of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 to service tax matters, the revision of a refund order by the Revisional Authority under Section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994, and the determination of whether services were rendered to parties in France. Pre-deposit of Alleged Erroneous Refund: The appellant was required to pre-deposit a sum of Rs 2,99,561/- as per the impugned Order-in-Revision, which demanded the refund that was already made to the appellants. The Revisionary Authority passed an order demanding the refund on the grounds that the appellants did not render any services to a person situated abroad, but only to a party in India. The learned Advocate raised legal issues regarding the grounds taken by the Revisionary Authority, pointing out that they were different from the original grounds. Applicability of Section 11A to Service Tax Matters: The appellants had applied for a refund after realizing that they were not liable to pay service tax on the services exported. However, they received a show cause notice invoking Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The learned Advocate argued that Section 11A cannot be applied to service tax matters, as there is no mention of its applicability in the relevant provisions. The Revisional Authority also issued a show cause notice seeking to revise the refund order under Section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994. Revision of Refund Order by Revisional Authority: The Revisionary Authority issued a show cause notice seeking to revise the refund order dated 27-7-2006. The grounds taken in this notice were different from the original grounds, and the Revisionary Authority ultimately passed an order demanding the refund that was already made. The Departmental Representative supported the impugned order, stating that the Revisionary Authority was within his rights to revise the erroneous order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. Determination of Services Rendered to Parties in France: Upon careful consideration, it was found that the appellants had indeed rendered services to parties in France, as evidenced by the show cause notice dated 12-9-2005. The appellants had provided consultancy services to a company in France and received payment in foreign exchange. The Tribunal did not find merit in the department's argument that the services were rendered only to a party in India, as the payment was received in foreign exchange. The Tribunal allowed the stay application, granting waiver of pre-deposit of the demanded amount, and directed that no coercive action should be taken until the appeal was disposed of.
|
