Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2018 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (6) TMI 1147 - AT - Service TaxRefund claim - service tax paid was exempted from payment of service tax by virtue of exemption Notification No. 25/2012 ST dated 20.06.2012 w.e.f. 01.07.2012 - unjust enrichment - Held that - It is clear that services rendered by way of transportation of chemical fertilizer, etc. by rail or vessel, it is exempted from service tax, a fact not disputed by the department. Also, on scrutiny of the invoices annexed with the appeal paper book, the appellant had recovered the charges from the customers M/s IPL mentioning as transportation charges of MOP cargo by barges from ship to shore. In these circumstances, the appellant are eligible to the refund claim of service tax paid for undertaking the transportation of MOP from vessel to shore. Unjust enrichment - Held that - The adjudicating authority, after considering the Chartered Accountant s Certificate, the entries made in their books of account, where under it is shown as receivable and also the letter of M/s IPL that they have not reimbursed the amount of service tax paid to the appellant on the ground that no service tax is payable, indicates that the appellant had not passed the burden of service tax, to their customers now claimed as refund. The order of the adjudicating authority restored - appeal allowed.
Issues:
- Appeal against order-in-appeal passed by Commissioner of Central Excise - Applicability of exemption Notification 25/2012 ST on transportation services - Refund claim for service tax paid - Allegation of unjust enrichment Analysis: 1. Appeal against order-in-appeal: The case involves an appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Rajkot. The appellant had entered into an agreement with M/s Indian Potash Limited for transportation services, leading to the payment of service tax, which was later claimed as a refund due to the services being exempted from service tax by Notification No. 25/2012 ST. The Revenue appealed the refund claim, leading to the present appeal. 2. Applicability of exemption Notification 25/2012 ST: The key contention was the applicability of exemption Notification 25/2012 ST, which exempts certain transportation services from service tax. The Tribunal analyzed the agreement between the parties and the nature of services provided, concluding that the transportation of chemical fertilizer, such as Murate of Potash, from vessel to shore falls under the exempted category. The Tribunal highlighted the specific goods exempted under the notification, supporting the appellant's claim for a refund based on the exempted nature of the service provided. 3. Refund claim for service tax paid: The appellant had paid service tax for the transportation services provided, totaling a significant amount. However, upon realizing the exemption under Notification 25/2012 ST, a refund claim was filed for the service tax paid. The Tribunal reviewed the documents, including invoices and agreements, to ascertain the nature of services and the applicability of the exemption. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had correctly discharged the service tax but was eligible for a refund due to the exempted status of the services provided. 4. Allegation of unjust enrichment: The issue of unjust enrichment was raised concerning whether the burden of service tax had been passed on to customers, thus disqualifying the appellant from claiming a refund. The Tribunal examined the evidence presented, including a Chartered Accountant's certificate and letters from M/s Indian Potash Limited indicating non-reimbursement of service tax, to determine that the burden had not been transferred. The Tribunal found that the appellant had not passed on the service tax burden, as evidenced by their accounting entries and communication with the service receiver, supporting the eligibility for the refund claim. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and restoring the decision of the adjudicating authority to grant the refund of the service tax amount originally sanctioned. The judgment emphasized the correct application of the exemption notification, the eligibility for a refund claim, and the absence of unjust enrichment in passing on the service tax burden to customers, leading to a favorable outcome for the appellant.
|