9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 742X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty, and the said amount was deposited through challan as excess payment, has not been rejected by the Department. The appellant is entitled to refund of Rs.39,09,130/-. The Adjudicating Authority is directed to grant refund with interest as per rules, within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order - Appeal allowed. - Service Tax Appeal No. 54605 of 2014-SM - FINAL ORDER NO. 50040/2023 - Dated:- 11-1-2023 - MR. ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Sh. Sparsh Bhargava, Advocate for the appellant Sh. Gopi Raman, Authorised Representative for the respondent ORDER Heard the parties. 2. The issue involved in this appeal is whether the refund claim filed by the appellant assesee for Rs. 39,09 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2008 issued office memorandum clarifying, to treat the PSF (SC) amount received by the airport operators as revenue receipt, which shall form part of the total income of the airport operator for the purpose of income tax. The appellant had been advised to apply for separate registration number under service tax for the PSF (SC) fund and the same was granted being Registration No. AAAAE3485ESD001, in the name Escrow PSF (SC). 5. That for the month of April, 2010 (Escrow account), the appellant had service tax liability totalling Rs.1,53,02,563/-, which was discharged by utilising cenvat credit amounting to Rs.1,13,93,433/- and by cash Rs. 39,09,130/- through challan, which was paid by the appellant from its general bank account (other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 65(7), which means a person liable to pay service tax and includes his agent. Thus, such issue of certificate in illusionary name has created all the confusion and misconception, as appears in the matter. The claim was rejected for the following reasons:- (i) That payment of tax has been made by the Escrow account and not by DIAL , wherein refund has been claimed by DIAL . (ii) That DIAL and Escrow (SC) are two separate entities and accordingly DIAL cannot claim refund of tax paid in the name of Escrow account. (iii) DIAL only established that the amount of Rs.39,09,130/- was paid through bank account of DIAL , but failed to establish that the same was wrongly paid under the name of PSF (SC) . Further, they failed to p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d also PSF (SC) account, in the name of DIAL and have paid the service tax by consolidated cenvat credit account and partly in cash. The appellant was advised not to club the amount of Rs. 39,09,130/- (paid by challan) in the service tax return of DIAL , and otherwise keep it separately and claim refund of this amount, as the amount was wrongly paid under registration of Escrow PSF (SC) . The appellant has filed the return of Escrow account showing nil receipt and nil service tax liability, and accordingly claimed refund of Rs.39,09,130/-. It is further urged that the said refund was rejected by the Department on the flimsy grounds, inspite of having accepted the consolidated return. 10. Learned Authorised Representative appearing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
