2018 (5) TMI 1516 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - excess service tax was paid by the appellant in June 2010 which they were not required to pay as no GTA service was received by them - Adjustment of excess service tax paid against future liability - Held that - The excess service tax was adjusted to the extent of ₹ 15,35,692/-in discharging their service tax liability during the period July 2010 to December 2010, and balance amount of ₹ 39,47,223/- claimed as refund. The argument of the Revenue that the appellant has not followed procedure and conditions laid down under Rule 6(4a) and (4b) of Service Tax Rules, 1994, is incorrect inasmuch as this Tribunal has already analyzing the relevant rules held that under sub rule (3) of Rule 6 of Service Tax Rules, there is no embargo in adjusting the excess service tax paid against future liability. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Issues:
1. Appeal against order-in-appeal dated 10.04.2013 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise Vadodara regarding excess service tax payment.
2. Eligibility of the appellant to adjust excess service tax paid against future liability under Rule 6(3) of Service Tax Rules, 1994.
3. Interpretation of conditions under Rule 6(4a) and (4b) of Service Tax Rules, 1994.
4. Comparison with relevant case laws: Commr. of Central Excise Mysore vs Power-cell Battery India Ltd and Commr. Of Central Excise Bhopal vs Telecom District BSNL.
5. Dispute over the procedure and conditions for adjusting excess service tax paid against future liability.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an appeal filed against an order-in-appeal dated 10.04.2013 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise Vadodara. The appellant, a manufacturer of excisable goods, had paid excess service tax due to a clerical error as no GTA service was received by them during June 2010. They filed a refund claim for the excess amount and adjusted the remaining balance against their service tax liability for the period July 2010 to December 2010. The Revenue sanctioned the refund claim but issued a show-cause notice for recovery of the adjusted amount. The demand was confirmed with interest and penalty, leading to the appeal before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) who rejected it, resulting in the present appeal.

The main issue revolved around the eligibility of the appellant to adjust the excess service tax paid against future liability under Rule 6(3) of Service Tax Rules, 1994. The appellant argued that the conditions under Rule 6(4a) and (4b) were relevant and referred to judgments in similar cases to support their claim. The Revenue, represented by Ld. AR, supported the findings of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals).

The Tribunal found that the appellant had indeed paid excess service tax in June 2010, which was not required due to the absence of GTA service receipt. The excess amount was partially adjusted against their service tax liability for July 2010 to December 2010, with the remaining claimed as a refund. The Revenue contended that the appellant did not adhere to the procedure and conditions specified under Rule 6(4a) and (4b) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. However, the Tribunal disagreed with this argument, citing previous judgments that clarified the permissibility of adjusting excess service tax paid against future liability under Rule 6(3) without any restrictions. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief as per law. The appeal was allowed, bringing the matter to a favorable conclusion for the appellant.

← Previous Next →