2017 (9) TMI 264 - AT - Service Tax

Entitlement of Interest - refund of excess tax paid - Revenue was of the view that refund of interest is not admissible as benefit accruing from the amount of service tax paid by the assessee, had been enjoyed by the assessee by utilizing Cenvat credit for payment of duty on final products - Held that - the amount so paid as per the audit objection, which was earlier paid by them and therefore, the said amount was adjusted in the subsequent month and there is no material available that the respondent availed Cenvat credit thereon - interest allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim of interest on excess service tax payment under reverse charge mechanism.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by Revenue against the Commissioner (Appeals) order where the respondent's appeal was allowed, setting aside the adjudication order. The respondent had erroneously overpaid service tax and interest on "banking and financial services" availed from outside India under reverse charge mechanism. The excess payment was detected, and the respondent adjusted it in the subsequent month's tax liability. A refund claim of interest was filed, which was rejected by the Adjudicating Authority, leading to an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and subsequently the current appeal by Revenue.

The Adjudicating Authority held that the refund of interest was not admissible as the benefit from the service tax paid had been utilized by the assessee through Cenvat credit for duty payment on final products. The Revenue relied on the decision of the Bombay High Court in a similar case to support their argument. The key issue was whether the respondent had availed Cenvat credit on the excess service tax paid. The Commissioner (Appeals) differentiated the current case from the Bombay High Court judgment, emphasizing that the respondent had not utilized Cenvat credit on the excess payment. The respondent confirmed not availing Cenvat credit on the amount paid, and the Revenue failed to provide evidence to the contrary. Consequently, the appeal by Revenue was dismissed, upholding the Commissioner (Appeals) decision.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, as there was no evidence that the respondent had availed Cenvat credit on the excess service tax payment. The case highlighted the importance of differentiating situations where Cenvat credit is utilized and where it is not, impacting the eligibility for interest refund on overpaid taxes. The judgment emphasized the need for clear factual and legal basis to challenge decisions made at lower levels in tax refund cases.