9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 1119X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd not allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsel Shri R. Raghavan reiterated the grounds of appeal and made the following main submissions:- i) The appellants provides two services to their clients namely IOC. (a) Business Auxiliary services of coal tar coating on pipes (b) goods transport agency services. They had paid ₹ 69,17,500/- as service tax for the period 10.09.2004 to 30.11.2004. During this period only Business Auxiliary Services wax taxable service whereas Goods Transportation Agency services was not taxable. Appellant mistakenly paid service tax on the transportation charges also. Thus they are eligible for refund of service tax paid on transportation charges. In order to avoid the dispute with regard to unjust enrichment, the appellant has limited the claim of refund on the service tax applicable to inward transport only. That they did not claim refund of service tax on the outward transportation charges. That these facts are undisputed. ii) Since the documents did not show the transportation charges separately, the appellant had arrived at the quantum of service tax applicable to inward transportation by applying a formula. The documents were furnished before the Range officer and the worksheet of arri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a consignment note and challan. In this case also consignment note refers to the actual weight and length of the bare pipes being transported by Supreme Road Carriers from Nagathone to the Vaiyavoor Factory premises of PSL Limited. The bills are raised periodically by Supreme Road Carriers with reference to the number of trailors transported during the month. The bills obviously were raised based on the rate per trailor or pipe indicated in the contract of transportation awarded to Supreme Road Carriers. Hence the entire cost of transportation of bare pipes from Nagathone/Bahadurgarh to the Vaiyavoor Factory premises of PSL Limited is fully supported by consignment notes and the bills raised by Supreme Road Carriers. Thus the cost of transportation is fully supported by documentary evidence. (v) That it is seen from the contract that the amount paid is inclusive of works contract tax and outward freight. This has to be excluded to arrive at the basic rate and accordingly the basic rate has been indicated. For each of the invoice copies placed on file if these two elements are removed from the contract price it would clearly tally with the basic rate shown in the worksheet. This i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authority of law. Since appellants are not liable to pay service tax on GTA services for the disputed period the excess paid tax ought to be refunded to them. (viii) The Learned Counsel relied upon the judgments in the case of Shriram Bearings Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise - 1997 (91) E.L.T. 255 (S.C.), West Coast Paper Mills Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, 2004 (172) E.L.T. 493 (Tri.). 5. Countering the above arguments, the Learned AR Shri K.P. Muralidharan reiterated, the findings in the impugned order. He submitted that on perusal of clause 8.1.0 of the contract, it is seen that contractor will be exclusively liable for payment of all taxer. So also it is seen that the contract with M/s. IOC is an all-inclusive contract. The adjudicating authority after verification and calling for clarification and reports from the Range officer, has observed that on comparison between the contract price for pipes of various sizes with Basic. Rate details submitted by the assesse it is seen that the Basic Rate shown is lesser by about 10 percent than that of the one mentioned in the contract which has not been properly explained by the assessee at any point of time. The invoi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bare pipe in coating plant, Coating of Pipes, arranging land for stockpile at Asanoor, handling and storage of coated pipes in coating plant, transportation of coated pipe from Coating Plant to stockpile, unloading and stacking of coated pipe at stockpile, storage of coated pipe at stockpile for a free period of two months from the contractual completion period or actual completion whichever is later, security arrangement at stockpile, transit and storage insurance and loading of coated pipes (free from defect) on trailers brought by mainline laying contractor (who will collect the coated pipe from the stockpile)." 10. Thus it is seen that the work carried out includes besides coating of pipes, the inward transportation of bare pipes and outward handling transportation of coated pipes. The appellants thus claim refund of that portion of the service tax which is paid excess by them contending that such service tax is applicable to the transportation charges. They do not dispute the payment of service tax made in respect of activity of coating of pipes which falls under Business Auxiliary Services. 11. As put forward in the contentions of the appellant, the Learned Counsel Sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ected under the authority of law is to be refunded unless eligible for refund. Thus even a single rupee if it belongs to the public exchequer cannot be refunded. It is the responsibility of the appellant who applies for refund to furnish necessary details by which the excess duty paid can be easily deciphered. The appellant has to maintain the accounts properly and the documents supporting the transactions should also be proper. The process of refund sanction cannot be such in a manner of conduct of investigation by the department as in cases where demand of service tax is made. The documents supporting the refund claim as well as how the claim is made should be properly accounted and easily determinable. From the totality of facts and evidence placed before us we are of the view that though appellant may have a legal claim, the same is not sufficiently substantiated by evidence. It is also to be noted that though appellant contends to have made the payment of service tax under protest, the appellant has no case that such amount was made on any demand or coercion made from the department. 13. From the foregoing discussions, we find no ground to interfere with the impugned order. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
