9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 1069X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Co. Ltd., Sagar (MPPKVVCL, Sagar) held Service Tax Registration No.AADCM6175EST002 for payment of Service Tax towards provision of various taxable services under the Finance Act, 1994. The Appellant had filed an application for claiming refund of pre-deposit amount of Rs.30,70,575/- and Rs.47,27,305/- consequent upon decision of Hon'ble CESTAT, New Delhi, vide Final Orders No. ST/A/51024/2021-CU [DB] dated 14/01/2021 and Final Order no. ST/A/51031/2021- CU [DB] dated 14/01/2021 against the two demand orders passed by the Commissioner, CGST, Jabalpur. On scrutiny, it was observed that the challans had been deposited by a different Service Tax registrant namely Madhya Pradesh Poorva Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Co. Ltd., Jabalpur (MPPKVVCL, Jabalpur) having Service Tax registration No. AADCM6175EST001. Accordingly, a Show Cause Notice No. IV(10)5/MPPKV/Refund/SGR/198 dated 28.05.2021 was issued proposing rejection of the refund claim. Subsequently, vide Order-in-Original No.01/DC/ST/REF/SGR/2021 dated 04.06.2021 the said refund claim was rejected. Aggrieved by the said Order, the appellant preferred an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), who vide order-in-appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 84/8/2014-CX dated 16.09.2014, has observed the following: "6.1. From the above, it can be seen that an assessee in whose favour the appeal has been decided shall be entitled for refund of pre-deposit along with interest. Further, the person who has made payment of such pre-deposit shall file a request letter with the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner for refund of pre-deposit along with interest. I observe that in the instant case the party/assessee in the orders passed by Hon'ble CESTAT and the party/assessee who has made pre-deposit are two different assessees holding different STC. I am, therefore, of the view that in terms of the provisions contained in the Circular supra, refund of pre-deposit cannot be granted to the Appellant on the strength of challans bearing STC of a different assessee. 7. I observe that in the instant case amount of pre-deposit has been paid against the STC number of same legal person's different registration number." 7. Learned authorized representative further submitted that with regard to the issue of rectification of remittances made against wrong Service Tax Code, the Commissioner (Appeals) had relied on the Trade Notice No. 3/2014 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oncerned divisional Asst. Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner." 10. The admitted facts of the case are as follows: 1. Appellant is registered under Service Tax. 2. Appellant paid Rs.30,70,575/- and Rs.47,27,305/- as pre-deposit while filing their appeal. 3. Vide Final Order dated 14.01.2021, the appeal was allowed by CESTAT. 4. There is no dispute that the said pre-deposit was paid by the appellant under a different registration number. 5. Appellant produced an affidavit and Chartered Accountant Certificate to authenticate the said refund claim. 11. We note that similar issue has been considered in various decisions/judgments which have been cited by the learned Counsel during his submissions. In this context, we note that the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Sahara India TV Network vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Noida - 2016(4) S.T.R. 145 (Tri.-Del.) held as follows: "6. We have considered the contentions of both sides. We find that in the case of K.K. Kedia (supra) CESTAT, in effect, has held that. such adjustment can be permitted while in the case of Plastichemix Industries (supra) such adjustment is held to be not permissible on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or incorrect registration numbers. The Central Board of Excise & Customs vide S.T. Circular No. 58/7/2003 (F.No. 157(2/2003 Cx. A), dated 20-5-2003 has clarified that in such instances the matter should be sorted out with the P.A.O. and the assessee need not be asked to pay Service Tax again. The transfer entries has to be effected by the PAO, as per Pr. Chief Controller of Accounts, New Delhi's letter No. Coord/2(1)/76/e-PAO (Chennai)/13-14/159, dated 4-9-2013 and the Civil Accounts Manual of the PAO, read with letter Chord/2(8)/Cex/13-14/224, dated 1-5-2014, even for previous years. The instances, resulting in remittances against wrong Head of accounts/STC numbers/C. Ex. Registration number, are cited below:- 1. Service Tax has been paid in the wrong accounting code of a difference service than which is rendered, where the mistake has occurred under same registration number. 2. Service Tax has been paid against incorrect Accounting Minor Heads of Education Cess, interest, penalty Secondary Higher Education Cess and or vice versa. For eg: interest paid under Secondary Higher Education Cess, etc. 3. Service Tax has been paid against the STC number of another assessee/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the light of the foregoing discussion, we set aside the impugned order, allow the appeal and remand the case to the primary adjudicating authority with the direction that the necessary adjustment of the impugned amount of Rs. 25 lakhs be done in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Cochin Commissionerate Trade Notice dated 10-7-2014 cited above." 11.1 In the instant case as well we note that the appellant had submitted the affidavit and a Chartered Accountant Certificate that the disputed amount has not been utilized nor any refund been taken. Hence, we hold that the instant case stands covered by this decision. 12. We further note that the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Haldia, vs. M/s. Tata Metaliks Ltd. - Service Tax Appeal No.98 & 108 of 2010, Final Order no.75500-75501/2023 dated 08.05.2023 held as follows: "4. The relevant portion of Trade Notice is reproduced below: Sub: Ratification of remittances made against wrong accounting code and or wrong STC Code / C.Ex. Registration Number Procedure Regarding. There has been number of representations from registered service providers/receivers and Central Exc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot - 2023(2) TMI 780- CESTAT Ahmedabad, the Ahmedabad bench of this Tribunal was dealing with service tax liability which was wrongly paid in service tax registration of Head office instead of Service tax registration of manufacturing unit, the Tribunal relied on Trade Notice No. 03/2014-S.T. dated 10 July 2014 issued by Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Cochin Commissionerate read with Circular No.58/7/2003 (F.No.157/2/2003Cx.A) dated 20.05.2003 and held that the service tax paid under different registration but by the same company cannot tantamount to non-payment of service tax and Revenue was given liberty to make necessary adjustment in their account if required. The relevant portion of decision is reproduced below: "4. We have carefully considered the submission made by both sides and perused the record. We find that in the present case the demand was confirmed only for there as on that the appellant at their Anjar Unit had had not paid the service tax on services received from abroad on reverse charge basis. However, there is no dispute as the same was admitted in the show cause notice as well as in the impugned order that the service tax of Rs.78,17, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
