2007 (11) TMI 149 - AT - Service Tax

Double payment of service tax - authorities took a reasoning that there were no double payment as there were two activities for which payment of tax has been made - contested by the appellants on the ground that there was only one activity of Annual Maintenance Contract and there was no Business Auxiliary Service assessee produced all documentary evidence to substantiate their claim - in the interest of justice, the matter is remanded to the original authority to re-adjudicate the matter

Summary

Issues:
Refund application rejection based on double payment of service tax.

Analysis:
The appeal arose from the rejection of a refund application by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise Service Division, Kochi, which was confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Cochin. The appellants claimed a refund of Rs.1,54,800/- due to double payment of service tax during a specific period. The appellants were authorized dealers and service providers for a specific company. The company subcontracted work to the appellants, who were paid a percentage of the bill amount. The company paid service tax on the entire billing amount, and the appellants claimed a refund for the amount inadvertently reimbursed by the company and on which they had paid service tax again. The authorities rejected the refund claim citing insufficient evidence and lack of proper documentation to prove the double taxation. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, emphasizing the absence of documents supporting the refund claim.

Upon hearing both sides, the Counsel for the appellants argued that the authorities had exceeded the scope of the show cause notice and presented additional documents to substantiate the refund claim. The Counsel requested a remand to the original authority for reevaluation. The learned SDR opposed the remand, asserting that there was no double payment as two separate activities attracted service tax. The Tribunal observed that the authorities had focused on the absence of documentary evidence to prove double taxation, concluding that there was no double payment. However, the appellants contended that there was only one activity, the Annual Maintenance Contract, and not two separate activities. The appellants submitted all relevant documentary evidence to support their claim. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the original authority for re-adjudication within four months, emphasizing the need for the appellants to produce all necessary documents to substantiate their claim. The appeal was allowed by remanding the case to the Original authority for further review.