2016 (1) TMI 628 - AT - Service Tax

Refund - service tax was mistakenly paid - Adjudicating Authority rejected a refund claim filed by the appellant on the grounds that appellant has voluntarily paid service tax under Manpower Recruitment Agency Services - Held that - , there is strength in the argument of the appellant that the amount of service tax paid under the head Manpower Recruitment Agency Services was not correct and the refund of the same should be sanctioned to the appellant. It is also observed from the case records that nowhere in these proceedings it has been held by the Adjudicating Authority or the First Appellate Authority that services provided by the appellant fall under the category of Manpower Recruitment Agency Services. In the absence of any such findings, an amount paid by the appellant under Manpower Recruitment Agency Services is required to be refunded because no tax can be collected without the authority of law. - Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues: Appeal against rejection of refund claim under Manpower Recruitment Agency Services and classification under Cargo Handling Services.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the rejection of a refund claim of service tax paid under Manpower Recruitment Agency Services. The appellant argued that the services provided did not fall under this category and sought a refund.

2. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the refund claim stating that the appellant had voluntarily paid service tax under Manpower Recruitment Agency Services. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, relying on CESTAT judgments, classifying the appellant's services as Cargo Handling Services.

3. The appellant contended that the service tax was mistakenly paid under the wrong classification and should be refunded. The Revenue argued that the amount paid under Manpower Recruitment Agency Services could be adjusted against the Service Tax Liability under Cargo Handling Services.

4. Upon review, it was found that the appellant had paid service tax under Manpower Recruitment Agency Services but later realized the incorrect classification. The First Appellate Authority did not specifically classify the services but upheld the rejection of the refund claim. It was observed that no specific finding was made that the services fell under Manpower Recruitment Agency Services.

5. The Adjudicating Authority's decision that the appellant wrongly paid service tax under Manpower Recruitment Agency Services was not supported by any specific findings. As no demand was made under Cargo Handling Services, the argument to adjust the amount paid against duty liability was rejected. The appeal was allowed, and the refund was sanctioned as no tax can be collected without legal authority.