9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (6) TMI 956 - AT - Service TaxRefund - Scope of SCN - benefit of N/N. 19/2015 dt. 14/10/2015 - Commissioner(Appeals) in the impugned order has gone beyond the show-cause notice as well as beyond the adjudication order and decided that the appellant is not eligible to the benefit of the exemption notification - bar of unjust enrichment - Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD THAT - The impugned order examining the eligibility of the appellant to the benefit of N/N. 19/2015 dt. 14/10/2015 is beyond the show-cause notice because in the show-cause notice, eligibility of the appellant to the benefit of the said Notification is not assailable. Further in the Order-in-Original also, the adjudicating authority has not disputed the eligibility of the appellant. The Order-in-Original has denied the refund only on the ground that the appellant has not produced any evidence regarding the payment of service tax on the said commission during that period. The appellant is entitled to the benefit of the exemption Notification No.19/2015 dt. 14/10/2015 but for quantification / verification of proof of payment of service tax and also to examine the unjust enrichment, the matter is remanded back to the original authority - appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility for exemption under Notification No.19/2015-ST 2. Interpretation of the law regarding service provided by agent/sub-agent 3. Consideration of evidence for payment of service tax 4. Applicability of unjust enrichment doctrine Eligibility for exemption under Notification No.19/2015-ST: The appeal challenged the rejection of the appellant's claim under Notification No.19/2015-ST, which granted exemption for services provided to Money Transfer Service Operators (MTSOs) by Indian banks or entities acting as agents. The appellant sought a refund of service tax paid for the period from April 2014 to September 2014. The Commissioner(Appeals) denied the claim, stating that the intent of the notification was not to provide exemption to services by sub-agents. However, the appellant argued that the order exceeded the scope of the show-cause notice and the law. The Tribunal found that the appellant was eligible for the exemption and remanded the matter for verification of proof of payment of service tax and consideration of unjust enrichment. Interpretation of the law regarding service provided by agent/sub-agent: The appellant contended that services provided by agents/sub-agents should be treated as export of service under Export of Services Rules, 2005, and not liable to service tax. They argued that the roles and responsibilities of agents and sub-agents are similar under the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The Tribunal referenced a decision in CCE Vs. Rambel Consumer Services, affirming that services provided by agents/sub-agents to MTSOs are exempt from service tax. The Tribunal held that the impugned order was unsustainable as it went beyond the show-cause notice and Order-in-Original. Consideration of evidence for payment of service tax: The appellant claimed to have provided evidence of payment of service tax on commissions received from MTSOs, but both the adjudicating authority and the Commissioner(Appeals) did not consider this evidence. The Tribunal noted that the appellant submitted a Chartered Accountant certificate certifying that only commissions were collected from MTSOs, not service tax. The Tribunal found that the authorities failed to consider the evidence presented by the appellant. Applicability of unjust enrichment doctrine: The appellant argued that unjust enrichment did not apply as the service constituted export of service and service tax was not payable. They cited precedents to support this claim. The Tribunal noted that the issue of unjust enrichment was not considered by the authorities, and the appellant had not collected any amount beyond the price of goods/services, thus not passing on the tax burden. The Tribunal held that the refund claimed did not attract the bar of unjust enrichment. This detailed analysis of the judgment provides insights into the issues raised, the arguments presented by both sides, and the Tribunal's findings and reasoning in each aspect of the case.
|
