2019 (2) TMI 1906 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim for the service tax paid - Reverse Charge Mechanism on Works Contract Service under Banking and Financial Institution Services - Rejection on two grounds that the appellant has failed to show that the said service tax paid under Works Contract Service and the appellant has failed to prove that they have paid service tax - HELD THAT - In this case it is a fact on record that whatever service tax was payable by the appellant under Banking and Financial Institution Services the same has been paid by them and there is no dispute that in the case of the service tax payable by the appellant during the impugned period under Banking and Financial Services has not been paid. The service tax for which refund has been filed by the appellant was paid under wrong head as Banking and Financial Service instead of Works Contract Service under reverse charge mechanism for the services availed by L.G. Electronics Pvt. Ltd. If it is a fact on record in that circumstances the refund claim cannot be rejected on technical grounds that the appellant has not paid service tax under Works Contract Service when the appellant produced a certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant showing that the service tax in question of which refund claim filed is none other than works contract service. Appeal allowed - decided n favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against rejection of refund claim for non-verification of records.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a banking company, filed a refund claim after paying service tax under Reverse Charge Mechanism on Works Contract Service received from L.G. Electronics Pvt. Ltd. The claim was rejected due to failure to prove payment and nature of service tax.

2. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had indeed paid the service tax under Banking and Financial Institution Services, albeit incorrectly categorized. The refund claim was for service tax paid under Works Contract Service, evidenced by a certificate from a Chartered Accountant.

3. The Tribunal found no merit in rejecting the refund claim based on technical grounds. The appellant had paid the service tax, albeit misclassified, and provided evidence to support the nature of the tax paid.

4. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief, if any. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of substance over technicalities in such matters.