9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (9) TMI 185 - AT - Service TaxRefund of excess Service Tax paid - Goods Transport Agency Service - Held that - In the case of Brindavan Phosphates Pvt. Ltd. 2017 (6) TMI 328 - CESTAT BANGALORE wherein the identical issue was involved this Tribunal has held that the declaration contained in the rubber stamp affixed on bills and the consignment notes issued by GTA are valid declaration by GTA and it satisfies requirement of Notification because in Notification no specific format has been prescribed for declaration and it is only the CBEC circular which prescribed such kind of enforcement. The appellants are entitled to the refund of ₹ 88,469/- along with interest in terms of Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act 1944 from the date of expiry of three months from the date of submission of the application for refund on 31.03.2008 till the date of payment of the refund amount - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
Refund claim of excess service tax paid without availing abatement under Notification No. 32/2004 ST dated 03.12.2004 - Rejection of refund claim by original authority - Appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) - Commissioner (Appeals) rejecting the appeal - Validity of declaration in consignment note with rubber stamp - Entitlement to interest on refund amount. Analysis: The appellant, a Goods Transport Agency, filed a refund claim of excess service tax paid to the Department amounting to ?88,469 on the ground of inadvertently paying service tax on 100% of freight charges without availing the benefit of abatement under Notification No. 32/2004 ST. The original authority rejected the refund claim citing lack of documents on how the excess payment was calculated and how service tax on 25% of the gross amount was determined. The authority also found the rubber stamp declaration on bills/consignment notes insufficient under Notification No. 12/2004-ST. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection, stating that the rubber stamp did not meet the conditions of the Notification. The appellant argued that the impugned order was contrary to facts and binding judicial precedent. They contended that the grounds for rejection were beyond the scope of the show-cause notice. The appellant claimed entitlement to interest on the refund amount based on a Supreme Court decision. They cited several cases where similar issues were decided in favor of the appellant. Upon review, the Tribunal found that the issue was settled by previous decisions cited by the appellant. Referring to the case of Brindavan Phosphates Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal held that the rubber stamp declaration on bills and consignment notes by GTA was valid and satisfied the Notification requirements. As no specific format was prescribed in the Notification, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant was entitled to the refund of ?88,469 along with interest as per Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act 1944, following the Supreme Court judgment in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. Union of India. The appeal was allowed, granting consequential relief. In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the validity of the rubber stamp declaration and the entitlement to the refund amount along with interest. The decision was based on established legal precedents and interpretations of relevant Notifications and judicial rulings, providing a comprehensive analysis of the issues raised in the appeal.
|
