9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (1) TMI 713 - AT - Service TaxRefund claim - The respondents have filed the refund claim on the ground that they have paid excess amount of ₹ 15,27,244/ - - Held that - the respondent have debited/reduced their balance to the tune of ₹ 15,27,244/- on 01/10/2009. Therefore the Commissioner(Appeals) has rightly discussed that there is no discrepancy at Kakinada and that on the belief that the respondents are eligible for adjustment of the amount already paid in Vizag, they have adjusted the same into their CENVAT credit account. Thus respondents filed the refund claim although they had not made any excess payment. The refund claim has been rejected and the same is upheld by the Commissioner(Appeals). Whether the respondents were allowed to take back the amount ₹ 15,27,244/- into their CENVAT credit account? - Held that - The Commissioner(Appeals) has observed that there is no infirmity in such direction as the respondents have reduced the said sum in their CENVAT credit account on 01/10/2009. That therefore the respondents are eligible for credit. It is also pertinent to mention that Department has not issued any notice to the respondents when they adjusted the excess amount to their CENVAT credit account. Therefore I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order as such adjustment does not give raise to any revenue loss. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues:
1. Eligibility for refund of excess service tax payment. 2. Validity of adjustment of excess payment into CENVAT credit account. Issue 1: The respondents filed a refund claim of ?15,27,224, contending they had overpaid service tax. However, records showed they had adjusted this amount from their balance on 01/10/2009. The original authority and the Commissioner(Appeals) found no excess payment, denying the refund claim. The appellant argued against allowing the respondents to take back the amount into their CENVAT credit account. The Tribunal held that the respondents had not made any excess payment, as they believed, and thus, the refund claim was rightly rejected. The Department appealed only on the ground of allowing the adjustment into the CENVAT credit account. The Tribunal found no revenue loss due to this adjustment, dismissing the appeal as unfounded. Issue 2: The Department objected to the adjustment of the excess amount into the CENVAT credit account without issuing a notice to the respondents. The Tribunal noted that the respondents had reduced the sum in their CENVAT credit account on 01/10/2009, and the Commissioner(Appeals) found no infirmity in this action. As there was no revenue loss from this adjustment and no notice was served by the Department, the Tribunal upheld the decision, stating that the adjustment did not raise any concerns regarding revenue loss. The Department's appeal was dismissed as lacking a valid basis. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Department's appeal, upholding the decisions of the original authority and the Commissioner(Appeals) regarding the refund claim and the adjustment of the excess payment into the CENVAT credit account. The Tribunal found no grounds for revenue loss or infirmity in the actions of the respondents, leading to the dismissal of the Department's appeal.
|
