2017 (4) TMI 1051 - AT - Service Tax

Tribunal remands case for detailed examination of service tax liability and payments.

M/s Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Co. Ltd. Versus CCE & ST, Raipur

The Tribunal allowed the appeal by way of remand, directing the Original Authority to conduct a detailed examination of the appellant's total service tax ... Payment under wrong accounting code - demand on the basis that the appellant has not paid the amount collected as service tax on supervision charges under the accounting code “consulting engineering service”. The same has wrongly been paid by the appellant under the accounting code of “technical inspection and certification agency service” - Held that: - it is clear that if the full tax liability has been discharged, payment under a wrong account head will not make the appellant liable to pay the service tax again - matter remanded back to the Original Authority for detailed scrutiny of the total service tax liability of the appellant vis-à-vis the total payment of service tax during the material time - appeal allowed by way of remand. Issues:1. Service tax liability under consulting engineering service.2. Payment under wrong accounting code.3. Applicability of tax paid under technical inspection and certification agency service.4. Examination of total service tax liability and payments made.Analysis:1. The appeal challenged the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur, demanding a service tax liability of &8377; 2,27,40,246/- from the appellant for the period 2006-2007 to July 2012 under the category of consulting engineering service. The appellant contended that they had already deposited the amount collected towards service tax, and the dispute was regarding the accounting code used for payment.2. The appellant argued that the demand was based on the incorrect accounting code used for payment, as they paid under 'technical inspection and certification agency service' instead of 'consulting engineering service.' The appellant maintained that the service tax had been fully discharged, and the issue was a procedural error. Citing relevant case laws, the appellant emphasized that payment under a different accounting code should not result in further confirmation of tax liability if the tax has been paid in full.3. The Authorized Representative (AR) for the respondent contended that the tax paid under technical inspection and certification agency service could not be adjusted towards the liability under consulting engineer service. The AR argued that the appellant failed to establish that the tax paid under the incorrect accounting code was not liable, as there was no service rendered under that category.4. The Tribunal noted that the Original Authority focused on the technical aspect of the accounting code used for payment, rather than examining the appellant's total service tax liability comprehensively. The Tribunal observed that a detailed scrutiny was required to ascertain the total tax liability of the appellant during the relevant period and reconcile the payments made, irrespective of the accounting code used. Emphasizing that full tax liability discharge should prevent double payment, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for a thorough review of the appellant's tax liability and payments.In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by way of remand, directing the Original Authority to conduct a detailed examination of the appellant's total service tax liability and payments during the relevant period to determine the actual tax liability and reconcile the payments made, irrespective of the accounting code used.