2018 (8) TMI 621 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of Service Tax paid - Time Limitation - Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that - The amount of Service Tax paid by the appellant during the disputed period had also been deposited by such service provider in the Central Government account. Since such service provider has not served any food or beverages in a restaurant, eating joint or a mess and provided altogether a different taxable service to the appellant within its factory premises, the condition no. 19 prescribed in the notification dated 20.06.2012 have not been fulfilled, for claiming refund benefit of Service Tax paid by the service provider. Refund not allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues: Denial of refund benefit in respect of Service Tax paid on outdoor catering service.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed a refund application under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, seeking a refund of Service Tax paid on outdoor catering service. The application was based on the exemption provided under entry serial No. 19 of Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012. However, the authorities rejected the refund application, stating that the conditions of the notification were not met as the service provider did not provide services from a restaurant, eating joint, or a mess.

2. The appellant argued that since the outdoor caterer provided the taxable service within the factory premises, complying with the statutory requirement under the Factory Act, 1948, the case should fall under entry No. 19 of the notification. The appellant cited decisions of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat and the Tribunal to support their claim that eligibility for CENVAT benefit should also entitle them to a refund of the tax amount paid on outdoor catering service.

3. The Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 exempts various taxable services from Service Tax. However, in this case, the service provider, an outdoor caterer, did not serve food or beverages in a restaurant, eating joint, or a mess as required by condition No. 19 of the notification. The Tribunal distinguished the appellant's reliance on previous cases, clarifying that the issue in those cases was different from the present case, which specifically dealt with a refund claim under Section 11B of the Act.

4. The Tribunal found no error in the impugned order denying the refund benefit to the appellant. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. The decision was dictated and pronounced in open court by the Member (Judicial) S K Mohanty.

This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the judgment regarding the denial of refund benefit for Service Tax paid on outdoor catering service, the legal arguments presented by the appellant, and the Tribunal's reasoning for dismissing the appeal.