TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal allowed: Payment under wrong service category; refund claim upheld.</h1> <h3>Sharam Sewa Associates Versus Commissioner of C. Ex., Allahabad</h3> Sharam Sewa Associates Versus Commissioner of C. Ex., Allahabad - 2015 (40) S.T.R. 377 (Tri. - Del.) Issues: Appeal against rejection of refund claim under Manpower Recruitment Agency Services and classification under Cargo Handling Services.Analysis:1. The appeal was filed against the rejection of a refund claim of service tax paid under Manpower Recruitment Agency Services. The appellant argued that the services provided did not fall under this category and sought a refund.2. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the refund claim stating that the appellant had voluntarily paid service tax under Manpower Recruitment Agency Services. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, relying on CESTAT judgments, classifying the appellant's services as Cargo Handling Services.3. The appellant contended that the service tax was mistakenly paid under the wrong classification and should be refunded. The Revenue argued that the amount paid under Manpower Recruitment Agency Services could be adjusted against the Service Tax Liability under Cargo Handling Services.4. Upon review, it was found that the appellant had paid service tax under Manpower Recruitment Agency Services but later realized the incorrect classification. The First Appellate Authority did not specifically classify the services but upheld the rejection of the refund claim. It was observed that no specific finding was made that the services fell under Manpower Recruitment Agency Services.5. The Adjudicating Authority's decision that the appellant wrongly paid service tax under Manpower Recruitment Agency Services was not supported by any specific findings. As no demand was made under Cargo Handling Services, the argument to adjust the amount paid against duty liability was rejected. The appeal was allowed, and the refund was sanctioned as no tax can be collected without legal authority.
TaxTMI 