9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (4) TMI 911 - AT - Service TaxRefund claim - time limitation - services of survey and exploration of minerals under reverse charge mechanism - Held that - the Bench in the case of the respondent in RELIANCE INDUSTRIES Versus COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX 2014 (1) TMI 257 - CESTAT MUMBAI , held that the assessee had not provided any services during the relevant period in question and hence having paid Service Tax on reverse charge mechanism are eligible for the refund. It was the submission of the learned Departmental Representative that this order of the Tribunal is in challenged and has been admitted by the Apex Court, hence the ratio cannot be relied on - This submission of the learned Departmental Representative will not carry the case of Revenue any further. On specific query from the Bench as to whether the Apex Court has granted any stay on the judgment and order of the Tribunal, both sides fairly submitted that there is no stay on the order dated 14.11.2013 of the Tribunal. It is settled law that unless stay is granted by higher judicial forum, as issue which is decided by coordinate Bench of the Tribunal needs to be followed in order to have certainty in fiscal matters. Impugned order upheld - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Territorial jurisdiction and applicability of service tax on services provided in the Continental Shelf and Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of India. 2. Interpretation of the term "India" in the context of the Taxation of Services (Provided from Outside India and Received in India) Rules, 2006. 3. Eligibility for refund of service tax paid under reverse charge mechanism for services received in the EEZ. Detailed Analysis: 1. Territorial Jurisdiction and Applicability of Service Tax: The appellants are engaged in exploration and production of mineral oil and natural gas in various offshore blocks under a Production Sharing Contract with the Government of India. They filed a refund claim for service tax paid for services such as seismic survey, data acquisition, and drilling, received at offshore locations beyond 12 nautical miles, in the Continental Shelf/Exclusive Economic Zone of India. The appellants argued that these services were not taxable prior to Notification No. 14/2010-ST dated 27.02.2010, which extended the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 to the entire Continental Shelf and EEZ for specific activities. 2. Interpretation of the Term "India": The appellants contended that the term "India" as defined in the Taxation of Services (Provided from Outside India and Received in India) Rules, 2006, did not include the entire Continental Shelf and EEZ but was limited to constructed installations, structures, and vessels. The Department, however, argued that the definition of "India" was inclusive and extended to all services related to prospecting, extraction, or production of mineral oil and natural gas within the Continental Shelf and EEZ, as per Notification No. 14/2010-ST. 3. Eligibility for Refund of Service Tax: The appellants paid service tax under protest and filed a refund claim, which was initially rejected by the Adjudicating Authority. The first Appellate Authority set aside this rejection, following judicial discipline and precedent. The Departmental Representative argued that the definition of "India" should not be given a restrictive meaning and that all services provided in the Continental Shelf and EEZ were taxable. The Tribunal, however, noted that the issue had already been settled in favor of the appellants in their own case for an earlier period, where it was held that services provided for pre-construction and construction activities in the Continental Shelf and EEZ were not taxable under reverse charge mechanism. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the first Appellate Authority's decision, confirming that the services in question were not taxable under the reverse charge mechanism and that the appellants were eligible for the refund of service tax paid. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of following judicial discipline and noted that unless a stay is granted by a higher judicial forum, the decision of a coordinate Bench should be followed to ensure certainty in fiscal matters. The appeal filed by the Revenue was rejected.
|
