2016 (4) TMI 845 - AT - Service Tax

Rejection of refund claim - excess service tax paid on the transmission charges - Jurisdictional Service Tax authority competent to decide the refund application - Held that - since the appellant in the capacity of recipient of service has filed the refund application before the Central Excise Authorities at Kota, the same is proper and maintainable under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Also, since the incidence of service tax has been borne by the appellant itself, the refund claim can very well be lodged by him claiming refund of excess service tax paid to the supplier of goods which was ultimately deposited into the Government Exchequer. Therefore, as the issue is squarely covered by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. vs Commr. of Customs and Central Excise 2015 (9) TMI 1277 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , and by the decision of Hon ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax vs. Indian Farmer Fertilizers Coop. Ltd. 2014 (7) TMI 891 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT , by applying the same, recipient of the services can file the refund application claiming refund of excess service tax paid. - Decided in favour of appellant with consequential relief

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of refund claim by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise.
2. Dispute over jurisdictional authority for sanctioning the refund amount.
3. Applicability of service tax refund to the recipient of services.
4. Interpretation of legal precedents regarding service tax refund claims.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Rejection of refund claim by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing exempted excisable goods, filed a refund claim for excess service tax paid on transmission charges. The claim was denied by the authorities on the grounds that the service tax amount was paid by the service provider and not the appellant. However, the Tribunal held that since the appellant bore the incidence of service tax, the refund claim was maintainable under the statute.

Issue 2: Dispute over jurisdictional authority for sanctioning the refund amount
The dispute centered around whether the appellant, as the recipient of services, could file a refund application before the Central Excise Authorities at Kota. The Tribunal determined that the appellant's filing was proper and maintainable under the relevant provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which is applicable to service tax matters.

Issue 3: Applicability of service tax refund to the recipient of services
The Tribunal established that the appellant, as the recipient of services, was entitled to file a refund claim for excess service tax paid. Citing legal precedents, the Tribunal clarified that the recipient of services can claim a refund within the prescribed period of limitation, irrespective of the jurisdiction of the service provider or the recipient.

Issue 4: Interpretation of legal precedents regarding service tax refund claims
The Tribunal referred to previous decisions, including judgments from the Constitution Bench and High Courts, to support its conclusion that the recipient of services can file a refund claim. It distinguished the facts of the case from the judgment relied upon by the Revenue, emphasizing that the issue of whether the buyer can file a refund application before its jurisdictional authorities was not the subject of the Supreme Court's decision.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found no merit in the impugned order and allowed the appeal filed by the appellant, granting the refund claim with consequential relief. The decision highlighted the entitlement of the recipient of services to claim a refund of excess service tax paid, emphasizing the importance of jurisdictional considerations and legal precedents in such matters.