2006 (12) TMI 481 - AAR - Service Tax

Application for Advance Ruling on Service Tax Implications Withdrawn: No Refund Granted

In Re : Sunbeam Auto Ltd.

The Authority rejected the application seeking an advance ruling on service tax implications related to freight costs as the applicant withdrew the ... Demand of service tax - Outward Freight service - whether the Service Tax paid by the Company on freight in respect of goods supplied to customer at Chennai which are transshipped at Chennai and subsequently delivered from the godown to the customer is Cenvatable when the price of goods is inclusive of freight meaning thereby price paid by Customer is delivered price to the customer. Issues Involved:1. Application seeking advance ruling on service tax implications on freight costs.2. Refund request for fee deposited with the application.3. Applicant's withdrawal of the application and its maintainability.Analysis:1. The applicant sought an advance ruling from the Authority on the service tax implications related to freight costs. The questions raised included whether service tax paid on outward freight, included in delivered prices, is Cenvatable and can be set off against Excise Duty/service tax liability. Additionally, the query pertained to the Cenvatability of Service Tax paid on freight for goods transshipped and delivered from a godown to the customer. The applicant later expressed a desire to withdraw the application due to a perceived inapplicability of provisions for domestic companies under the Act.2. The Authority noted certain defects in the application but did not delve into them further as the applicant sent a letter requesting a refund of the fee and withdrawal of the application. However, the Authority highlighted the absence of provisions enabling fee refunds and declined the applicant's request. Despite the applicant's indication of ineligibility for seeking an advance ruling, the Vice President of the company appeared later, expressing regret for not being present earlier and reiterating the withdrawal request. Consequently, the Authority rejected the application as 'Withdrawn.'3. The judgment emphasized the lack of provisions allowing for fee refunds in such cases and the applicant's own acknowledgment of ineligibility for an advance ruling. The subsequent appearance of the company's Vice President to reiterate the withdrawal request led to the rejection of the application on the grounds of being 'Withdrawn.' The decision underscored the importance of compliance with the Act's provisions and the implications of withdrawing an application seeking an advance ruling.