9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (11) TMI 685 - AT - Service TaxRefund of service tax paid - receiving the consulting Engineers service from the Overseas service provider during 1998 to 2002 - Hon ble Supreme Court upheld the liability to discharge the tax by the Appellant - HELD THAT - The taxability of services received by the respondent from overseas service provider namely M/s SNC Lavalin, Canada has been ultimately settled by the order of the Hon ble Supreme Court dated 12.12.2007 2007 (12) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT and thereafter, rejection of the review application filed by the Respondent on 06.04.2010. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order has completely ignored the order of the Hon ble Supreme Court and by following the judgment of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Hindustan Zinc Ltd Vs. CCE, Jaipur 2008 (6) TMI 6 - CESTAT NEW DELHI (LB) de hors the records of the case, opined that the respondent are not liable to pay service tax during the said period. The impugned order passed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), which is contrary to Judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court cannot be sustained - Appeal of Revenue allowed.
Issues Involved:
The issue involved in the present case is whether the refund of service tax paid by the respondent on receiving consulting Engineers' service from the Overseas service provider during 1998 to 2002 be admissible to them, even after the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the liability to discharge the tax by the Appellant. Details of Judgment: Issue 1: Background of the Case and Refund Claim The respondent filed a refund claim of Rs.1,42,48,182/- on 08.01.2010, relating to a contract with an overseas firm for consulting engineer services. After a series of legal proceedings, including appeals to various authorities and courts, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the respondent's appeal and review application, confirming the liability to pay service tax. Subsequently, a show cause notice was issued for rejection of the refund claim, leading to the rejection by the adjudicating authority. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) later allowed the refund claim, prompting the Revenue to file an appeal. Issue 2: Arguments of the Revenue The Revenue contended that the refund claim was not maintainable as the liability to pay service tax had been confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, making the refund infructuous. The Revenue argued that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) exceeded his authority by allowing the refund claim, citing the principle of judicial discipline and the finality of the Supreme Court's decision in the respondent's case. Additionally, the Revenue highlighted the delay in filing the refund application beyond the prescribed period. Issue 3: Tribunal's Decision The Tribunal noted the sequence of events leading to the final decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court upholding the liability to pay service tax. The Tribunal observed that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) had disregarded the Supreme Court's order and relied on a Tribunal judgment, which was not in line with the principle of judicial discipline. Emphasizing the finality of the Supreme Court's decision and the lack of any subsequent modification, the Tribunal set aside the ld. Commissioner (Appeals)'s order and restored the adjudicating authority's decision, allowing the Revenue's appeal. In conclusion, the Tribunal held that the refund claim was not admissible to the respondent due to the Hon'ble Supreme Court's definitive ruling on the liability to pay service tax, and the ld. Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision contravened the principle of judicial discipline. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was allowed, and the order of the adjudicating authority was reinstated. (Order pronounced in the court on 17.11.2023)
|
