9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (4) TMI 127 - AT - Service TaxRefund of amount deposited as service tax during investigation - period of limitation - unjust enrichment - Business Auxiliary Service - Held that - Appellant during investigation, deposited an amount of ₹ 6,85,200.00 through TR6 challan - Commissioner (Appeals) modified the adjudication order and reduced the demand of duty and accordingly the proportionate deposit was appropriated against the said demand - Adjudicating authority returned the deposit amount as per claim of the appellant. By the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal of the Revenue on the ground that the appellant has not filed their claim within one year from the date of order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and it is hit by limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act 1944. I find that there is no dispute that the appellant deposited the amount during investigation. - decision in the case of Bajaj Auto Ltd (2007 (1) TMI 408 - CESTAT, MUMBAI) is directly applicable in the present case, as there is no issue of unjust enrichment. I also find that the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Mafatlal Industries Ltd (1996 (12) TMI 50 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) as relied upon by learned Authorised Representative has already been considered by the Tribunal in the case of M/s Foods, Fats & Fertilizers Ltd (2010 (6) TMI 344 - CESTAT, BANGALORE ). - mpugned order is not sustainable. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
1. Liability to pay Service Tax under Business Auxiliary Service category. 2. Appropriation of deposited amount against Service Tax demand. 3. Refund claim validity under Section 11B of Central Excise Act 1944. 4. Application of precedent decisions on deposit refunds and limitation periods. 5. Unjust enrichment and its relevance to refund claims. Analysis: Issue 1: Liability to pay Service Tax under Business Auxiliary Service category The case involved the appellant, an authorized dealer of a motor company, engaged in providing services as Direct Selling Agents of various banks. The Revenue contended that the appellant was liable to pay Service Tax under the Business Auxiliary Service category. The adjudicating authority and Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the demand of Service Tax, leading to an appeal before the Tribunal. Issue 2: Appropriation of deposited amount against Service Tax demand During the investigation, the appellant deposited an amount through TR-6 challan. The adjudicating authority appropriated this amount against the demand of duty. The Commissioner (Appeals) modified the order, reducing the demand of Service Tax and appropriating the deposit accordingly. The Tribunal upheld the cross objection filed by the appellant, setting aside the penalty imposed by the Revenue. Issue 3: Refund claim validity under Section 11B of Central Excise Act 1944 The appellant filed a refund claim for the deposited amount. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the Adjudication order, stating that the appellant's claim was time-barred under Section 11B of the Act. The Tribunal analyzed the nature of the deposit and its relation to the limitation period, considering relevant legal precedents and the appellant's submission. Issue 4: Application of precedent decisions on deposit refunds and limitation periods The Tribunal referred to various decisions, including Bajaj Auto Ltd and M/s Foods, Fats & Fertilizers Ltd cases, to determine the applicability of Section 11B regarding the refund claim. It noted that deposits made during investigation were not considered as payments of duty, entitling the appellant to excess amounts deposited. The Tribunal emphasized that such deposits were not barred by limitation, citing previous rulings. Issue 5: Unjust enrichment and its relevance to refund claims The Revenue argued that the deposit was a payment of Service Tax and subject to Section 11B. However, the Tribunal distinguished between deposits and payments, citing the decision in Bajaj Auto Ltd case. It rejected the Revenue's contention of unjust enrichment, as there was no issue of enrichment in the present case. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and providing consequential relief. In conclusion, the Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the distinction between deposits and payments, and ruling that the refund claim was not time-barred under Section 11B. The decision was based on a thorough analysis of legal precedents and the specific circumstances of the case.
|
