2017 (9) TMI 889 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - reverse charge mechanism - whether the appellant is eligible for the refund of an amount along with interest paid by him on 31.03.2004 under reverse charge mechanism for the services rendered from goods transported for the period 16.11.1997 to 02.06.1998? - Held that - since there is a retrospective amendment by Finance Act, 2003, tax liability which has been paid by the appellant is correctly done so and appropriated by the adjudicating authority and as well as first appellate authority and hence the question of refund does not arise - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues involved: Eligibility for refund of service tax paid under reverse charge mechanism.

Analysis:
1. Eligibility for Refund: The main issue in this case is whether the appellant is entitled to a refund of the amount paid under the reverse charge mechanism for services rendered from goods transported during a specific period. The appellant claims that the amount paid as service tax liability was not payable by them and was done under the direction of lower authorities. They argue that there was no unjust enrichment and rely on the judgment of the Apex Court in a specific case. On the other hand, the Department argues that due to a retrospective amendment by the Finance Act, 2003, the tax liability paid by the appellant was correct and has been appropriated by the authorities. They cite a case where retrospective amendments were constitutionally upheld by the Apex Court.

2. Legal Analysis: The Tribunal considered the submissions made by both parties. The first appellate authority had examined whether the service tax paid by the appellant for services received from Goods Transport Operators during a specific period was legally correct. The authority referred to a Supreme Court judgment from 1999 and subsequent amendments to the Finance Act in 2000 and 2003. The authority highlighted the changes in the law regarding the liability to pay service tax and the retrospective effects of these amendments. They also mentioned a case where the statutory foundation for a previous decision had been replaced, making the earlier decision irrelevant. The Tribunal noted that the appellant did not contest the findings of the first appellate authority effectively in their grounds of appeal.

3. Decision: After considering the arguments and the findings of the first appellate authority, the Tribunal found no merit in the appeal. The Tribunal upheld the impugned order and rejected the appeal, stating that the service tax along with interest paid by the appellant was legally payable. The appellant's reliance on a different case for filing the refund claim was deemed not applicable to the present case. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant had not effectively contested the findings of the first appellate authority, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.