2019 (4) TMI 1699 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of excess service tax paid by mistake - time limitation - HELD THAT - In the present case the appellant by mistake has paid excess service tax and on realizing his mistake he filed a refund claim and thereafter a show-cause notice was issued to reject the refund claim on the ground of non submission of the documents. Further the appellant furnished all the required documents which were considered by the original authority and after considering the documents sanctioned the refund claim of ₹ 3,17,984/- in respect of the excess service tax paid on GTA during month of May 2014 under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act 1944 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Issues:
1. Validity of the review order passed by the Department under Sub section 2 of Section 35E of the Central Excise Act in a Service Tax case.
2. Applicability of self-assessment in claiming a refund and challenging assessment.
3. Interpretation of relevant legal provisions for filing a refund claim in a self-assessment scenario.
4. Comparison of decisions by the Tribunal with those of the Hon'ble Apex Court.

Issue 1: Validity of Review Order:
The appeal challenged an order by the Commissioner (Appeals) that set aside the Order-in-Original, allowing the Department's appeal against a refund claim for excess service tax paid. The appellant contended that the review order by the Department was invalid as it was passed under a provision of the Central Excise Act, not applicable to Service Tax cases. The Tribunal analyzed the legal framework and found the review order to be improper, highlighting the distinction between the relevant provisions of the Central Excise Act and the Finance Act.

Issue 2: Applicability of Self-Assessment:
The appellant argued that the refund claim should not be rejected solely because no appeal was filed against the self-assessment. They emphasized that filing ST-3 returns constituted self-assessment, making an appeal against it legally untenable. The Tribunal examined the facts and noted that the appellant had paid excess service tax due to an error, subsequently filing a refund claim. It was observed that the Department's appeal was based on the lack of challenge to the assessment, which the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld, citing certain decisions by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

Issue 3: Interpretation of Legal Provisions:
The Tribunal delved into the legal interpretation of the case, distinguishing it from precedents cited by the Department. It referenced earlier Tribunal decisions involving similar scenarios, where the appellants had paid service tax on their own and later sought refunds. The Tribunal emphasized that in cases of self-assessment without a formal decision by the tax authority, the question of challenging the assessment did not arise. The legal arguments presented by the appellant were deemed applicable, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order and allowing the appeal with consequential relief.

Issue 4: Comparison with Tribunal and Apex Court Decisions:
The Tribunal compared the facts and circumstances of the case with decisions by the Hon'ble Apex Court and earlier Tribunal rulings. It highlighted the specific details of the case, emphasizing the self-assessment aspect and the lack of a formal assessment by the tax authority. By applying the legal principles established in previous Tribunal cases, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned order was not legally sustainable, ultimately allowing the appellant's appeal with appropriate relief.

This comprehensive analysis of the legal judgment covers the issues raised in the appeal, providing detailed insights into the legal reasoning and interpretation applied by the Tribunal in reaching its decision.

← Previous Next →