2025 (1) TMI 309 - AT - Service Tax

Short payment of service tax - Wrongful availament of abatement of 60% as per SI.No. 10 of N/N. 26/20120ST dated 20.06.2012 as amended - HELD THAT - The appellant have vehemently argued that the service on which the present demand was confirmed itself was not taxable, this claim was made by the appellant before the adjudicating authority, however, the adjudicating authority has not given the relief on the ground that at the time of payment of service tax they have not claimed the exemption from service tax from the service in question therefore at this stage they cannot make their claim. The adjudicating authority on this contention is disagreed as it is a settled law that any benefit available under the law can be claimed at any stage by an assessee. Therefore, if the appellant s service is exempted or non taxable the present demand will not sustain however, it is not examined whether the exemption claimed by the appellant is admissible to them or not and the same is left open for the adjudicating authority to reconsider the matter. Conclusion - It is a settled law that any benefit available under the law can be claimed at any stage by an assessee. Appeal allowed by way of remand to the adjudicating authority for passing a fresh order.

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions addressed in this judgment are:

Whether the service of transportation of cranes by vessel from Pipavav port to JNPT port is liable to service tax under the category of transportation of goods by national/inland waterway.
Whether the appellant can claim exemption from service tax at a later stage, despite having initially paid the service tax under a mistaken belief.
Whether the appellant is entitled to the benefit of abatement as per the relevant notifications, and if the short payment of service tax, as alleged by the department, is justified.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Taxability of Transportation Services

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The appellant argued that the service of transportation of goods by inland waterway was not taxable. The legal framework includes the Point of Taxation Rules, 2011, and relevant notifications regarding service tax exemptions and abatements.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The tribunal noted that the appellant claimed the service was non-taxable and that this claim was not adequately addressed by the adjudicating authority.
Key Evidence and Findings: The appellant had initially paid service tax on the abated amount under a mistaken belief, which was later contested.
Application of Law to Facts: The tribunal emphasized that any benefit available under the law, such as exemption, can be claimed at any stage, thus supporting the appellant's position.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The tribunal disagreed with the adjudicating authority's stance that the claim could not be made at this stage, highlighting the appellant's right to claim exemptions.
Conclusions: The tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appellant to claim the exemption and remanding the matter for reconsideration by the adjudicating authority.

Issue 2: Claiming Exemption at a Later Stage

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The appellant relied on several judgments to support the argument that exemptions can be claimed at any stage.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The tribunal agreed with the appellant, stating that the availability of legal benefits, such as exemptions, is not restricted by the timing of the claim.
Key Evidence and Findings: The tribunal found that the appellant's claim was valid and should be reconsidered by the adjudicating authority.
Application of Law to Facts: The tribunal applied the principle that legal benefits can be claimed at any stage to the appellant's case, supporting their right to exemption.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The tribunal rejected the adjudicating authority's argument that the appellant could not claim exemption after initially paying the tax.
Conclusions: The tribunal remanded the case for fresh consideration, allowing the appellant to claim the exemption.

Issue 3: Abatement and Short Payment of Service Tax

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The appellant claimed abatement as per Notification No. 26/2012-ST, which was amended to increase the abatement rate from 50% to 60%.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The tribunal did not make a final determination on the abatement issue, leaving it open for reconsideration by the adjudicating authority.
Key Evidence and Findings: The appellant had paid service tax with a 60% abatement, which was contested by the department.
Application of Law to Facts: The tribunal acknowledged the appellant's claim of abatement but left the issue for the adjudicating authority to decide.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The tribunal did not address the competing arguments on abatement, focusing instead on the exemption claim.
Conclusions: The tribunal remanded the case for further consideration of the abatement issue.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: "It is a settled law that any benefit available under the law can be claimed at any stage by an assessee."
Core Principles Established: Legal benefits, such as exemptions, can be claimed at any stage, irrespective of initial payments made under mistaken beliefs.
Final Determinations on Each Issue: The tribunal set aside the impugned order, remanding the case for fresh consideration by the adjudicating authority, particularly concerning the exemption claim and the abatement issue.

← Previous Next →