9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (3) TMI 1350 - AT - Service TaxRefund of service tax paid on 60% of the value of services rendered under a reverse charge mechanism - refund can be allowed without modifying the assessment or not - HELD THAT - Since the issue in the present appeal relates to the refund claim the same has to be considered in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of ITC Ltd. Vs. CCE Kolkata-IV 2019 (9) TMI 802 - SUPREME COURT (LB) where the law has been settled that the refund proceedings being in the nature of execution proceedings the refund cannot be sanctioned and allowed without modifying the assessment. In the present case the appellant had paid the service tax on 60% of the value of the service so rendered and made the refund claim on 5.4.2016. The refund application was decided by the Adjudicating Authority on merits that the refund claim was filed incorrectly as the assessee themselves were liable to pay service tax on 50% of the total value of the billing amount. As the assessee was held to be himself liable to pay duty for which the refund is claimed the refund claim was held to be unsustainable. The Tribunal in the case of M/s. Jagdamba Phosphate vs. Commissioner of CGST Udaipur 2024 (10) TMI 1547 - CESTAT NEW DELHI held that since the appellant had not assailed the self-assessments and as per assessments the appellant is not entitled to any refund the refund claim was rejected. Conclusion - i) A self-assessed return is considered an assessment and unless modified it cannot be questioned in refund proceedings. ii) Refund claims require the original assessment to be challenged and modified through the appropriate legal channels. Appeal dismissed.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal issue in this case revolves around the appellant's entitlement to a refund of service tax paid on 60% of the value of services rendered under a reverse charge mechanism. The key questions considered include:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents The appellant's refund claim is governed by Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. The relevant notifications include Notification No. 25/2012 and Notification No. 26/2012-ST, as amended by Notification No. 8/2014-ST. The legal precedents considered include the Supreme Court's decision in ITC Ltd. v. CCE, Kolkata-IV, and the Delhi High Court's decision in BT (India) Pvt. Ltd. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning The Tribunal interpreted the refund proceedings as execution proceedings, as established by the Supreme Court in ITC Ltd., which means that a refund cannot be sanctioned without modifying the original assessment. The Tribunal emphasized that a self-assessed return amounts to an assessment, and unless it is modified through the statutory procedure, a refund claim cannot be entertained. Key Evidence and Findings The appellant paid service tax on 60% of the service value and subsequently filed a refund claim. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the claim on the grounds that the appellant was liable to pay service tax on 50% of the billing amount. The Tribunal found that the appellant did not challenge the self-assessment, which was crucial for the refund claim to be considered. Application of Law to Facts The Tribunal applied the legal principles from ITC Ltd. and BT (India) Pvt. Ltd., which require the modification of the original assessment before a refund can be entertained. Since the appellant did not challenge their self-assessment, the refund claim was deemed unsustainable. Treatment of Competing Arguments The appellant argued for the refund based on their understanding of the service tax liability. However, the Tribunal upheld the Adjudicating Authority's decision, aligning with the legal precedent that refund proceedings cannot alter an assessment without formal modification. Conclusions The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's refund claim could not be entertained due to the absence of a challenge to the original self-assessment. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the lower authority's decision. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning "The refund proceedings are in the nature of execution for refunding amount. It is not assessment or re-assessment proceedings at all. Apart from that, there are other conditions which are to be satisfied for claiming exemption, as provided in the exemption notification." Core Principles Established
Final Determinations on Each Issue The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, dismissing the appeal based on the legal principles established by the Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court. The appellant's failure to challenge the self-assessment rendered the refund claim unsustainable.
|
