9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (2) TMI 869 - AT - Service TaxClaim of refund of service tax paid under reverse charge mechanism - export of services - non submission of BRC - whether service tax paid inadvertently, can be retained by the Govt. Exchequer on the ground of non-submission of BRC, especially in the contest of specific observations made by lower authorities that the appellant was not liable to pay service tax under Reverse Charge Mechanism. - Held that - since the authorities below have specifically recorded the findings that the refund claim of service tax including interest paid by the appellant under Section 66A vide Challan No. 00037 dated 26.06.2011 against the services received during 01.01.2005 to 17.04.2006 from overseas agent is legally tenable, then rejection of refund claim on the ground of non-submission of BRC s is not supported by any provisions of law. - refund allowed - Decided in favor of assessee.
Issues involved:
Refund claim rejection based on non-submission of documentary evidence (BRC) - Retention of service tax paid inadvertently - Applicability of Reverse Charge Mechanism - Legal tenability of refund claim - Interpretation of Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994. Analysis: The case involves an appeal against the rejection of a refund claim of &8377; 6,36,450 by the Commissioner (Appeals) in an adjudication order dated 23.01.2014. The appellant, registered for providing "Business Auxiliary Service," had paid service charges to overseas service providers under the reverse charge mechanism. The appellant sought a refund of the service tax amount deposited from 01.01.2005 to 17.04.2006, following CBEC Instruction No. 276/8/2009-CX-8A. The refund application was partially allowed, but the balance was rejected for not submitting Bank Realisation Certificates (BRC). The main issue before the Tribunal was whether service tax paid inadvertently could be retained due to non-submission of BRC, especially when the lower authorities acknowledged the appellant's non-liability under the Reverse Charge Mechanism. The Assistant Commissioner's findings stated that no service tax liability existed for services received from overseas agents during 01.01.2005 to 17.04.2006 under the Reverse Charge Mechanism. The refund claim was deemed legally tenable, but rejection was based on the absence of BRCs for specific entries. The Tribunal found that since no service tax liability existed during the period in question, the inadvertent tax payment should be refunded. The retention of such funds by the government was deemed unauthorized. The requirement of BRCs was considered unnecessary as it pertains to refund on exported input services, not applicable in this case. The Tribunal concluded that the rejection of the refund claim based on non-submission of BRCs lacked legal support. In light of the above analysis, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal in favor of the appellant with the consequential benefit of refund. The judgment highlights the importance of legal tenability in refund claims and the necessity to align decisions with the provisions of the law, especially concerning inadvertent tax payments and documentary evidence requirements.
|
