News Update

CBIC revises tariff value of edible oils, gold & silverFormer IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt jailed for 20 yrs for planting drugs to frame lawyerCentre receives Rs 18.5 lakh crore tax revenue upto Feb monthUN says Households waste across world is now at least one billion meals a dayExpert Committee on developing GIFT IFSC as 'Global Finance and Accounting Hub' submits report to IFSCAIndia, China hold fresh dialogue for complete disengagement on Western borders: MEADefence Production issues notification for re-organisation of DGQAThakur says India is prepared for 2036 OlympicsCBDT substitutes Form in ITR-5EV Revolution: Lessons for India to learn from US and China!London court green-signals auction of luxury apartment of fugitive Nirav ModiGovt consults RBI; finalises borrowing plan for first half of FY 2024-25Gadkari says Farmers’ protest is politically-motivatedVP calls upon women entrepreneurs to be 'Vocal for Local'America offers USD 10 mn bounty for information on ‘Blackcat’ hackers after UnitedHealth gets hitI-T- The order of the ITSC can only be reopened in cases of fraud or misrepresentation: HC8 persons including Hezbollah militants killed in Israeli strike on LebanonMacron pillories EU-South Africa trade deal; calls it ‘really bad’ in BrazilThailand’s Lower House okays Bill to legitimise same-sex marriageYellen warns China against clean energy dumpingMilky Way’s central black hole - Twisted magnetic field observedCus - Assessee has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that goods in question imported under air way bills/bills of entry were in fact filed by him and hence the only natural corollary available to Revenue is confiscation of same: CESTATSmall investors help Trump Media’s valuation skyrocket to USD 13 billionJustice Ritu Raj Awasthi joins as Judicial member of Lokpal
 
ST - Amount paid in excess during investigation - Merely because adjudicating authority had appropriated amount paid towards tax demand, refund cannot be denied when Commr(A) reduced tax liability by holding that excess amount is not deposit & claim is hit by bar of limitation: CESTAT

By TIOL News Service

AHMEDABAD, MAR 31, 2015: THE appellant is an authorized dealer of M/s Hero Honda Motors Ltd. and registered with the Service Tax authorities. It was found that the appellants were engaged in providing services as Direct Selling Agents (DSA) of various banks including ICICI Bank in their premises. According to the Revenue, the appellant was liable to pay Service Tax under the category of Business Auxiliary Service.

The appellant, at the instance of the CE officers, deposited an amount of Rs.6.85 lakhs on 19.09.2005. A SCN came to be issued on 25.09.2008 demanding ST of Rs.6.07 lakhs under BAS for the period 01.07.2003 to 27.08.2005 and proposing appropriation of the amount deposited during the investigation. The original authority confirmed the demand of ST with interest and penalties and also appropriated the amount already paid.

However, the Commr(A) reduced the demand to Rs.4.43 lakhs and appropriated the same plus interest & penalty against the deposit made.

Revenue challenged this order. The Tribunal vide its final order dt. 28.07.2011 rejected the appeal and the cross objection filed by appellant was allowed by setting aside the penalty imposed u/s 77 & 78 of FA, 1994.

Thereafter, the appellant filed a refund claim for the excess amount deposited by them during the investigation.

This was paid by the original authority but denied by the lower appellate authority in Revenue appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal of the Revenue on the ground that the appellant has not filed their claim within one year from the date of order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and it is hit by limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act 1944.

So, the appellant is before the CESTAT and submits that they deposited this amount during investigation and since they had not paid any Service Tax the provisions of Section 11B of CEA, 1944 would not be applicable. [ M/s Foods, Fats & Fertilizers Ltd Vs CCE Guntur - 2010-TIOL-1138-CESTAT-BANG relied upon]

The AR countered this submission by stating that the amount paid is not a deposit as the adjudicating authority had already appropriated the amount against the demand of Service Tax. [United Spirit Ltd Vs CC (Import) NhavaSheva - 2008-TIOL-1839-CESTAT-MUM , Mafatlal Industries Ltd - 2002-TIOL-54-SC-CX-CB relied upon]

The Bench observed that the fact that appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.6,85,200/- on 19.09.2005 during investigation and the SCN was issued in September, 2008 and which amount was appropriated by the adjudicating authority against the demand of duty and which order was modified by reducing the demand by Commr(A) and accordingly proportionate deposit was appropriated, is not disputed by the department.

The Bench further noted that the Tribunal in the case of Bajaj Auto Ltd, M/s Foods, Fats & Fertilizers Ltd held - that the amount in question deposited by the appellant during the course of investigation have to be considered as deposits;that in respect of the part of the amount so deposited which has not been found by the Commissioner to be payable, the appellants are entitled for refund of the excess amount of deposits made by them; such deposits are not hit by the bar of limitation.

The case laws cited by the AR were distinguished and after holding that the order of Commissioner(A) is not sustainable in law the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

(See 2015-TIOL-581-CESTAT-AHM)


POST YOUR COMMENTS
   

AR not Afar by SK Rahman

TIOL Tube Latest

Shri Shailendra Kumar, Trustee, TIOL Trust, giving welcome speech at TIOL Awards 2023




Shri M C Joshi, Former Chairman, CBDT




Address by Shri Buggana Rajendranath, Hon'ble Finance Minister of Andhra Pradesh at TIOL Awards 2023