2023 (6) TMI 465 - AT - Service Tax

Appellant's Service Tax Refund Claim Denied for Overlapping Demand Period

M/s. Bharat Cylinders Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Madurai

The appellant's refund claim for mistakenly paid service tax under GTA service was rejected due to overlap with a previously confirmed demand period. ... Refund of Service tax paid by mistake - GTA service - period involved in the present appeal overlaps with the period for which the demand has been confirmed - HELD THAT:- It is seen that there was an earlier demand for various services including GTA service for the period 1.10.2009 to 30.9.2010. The amount involved for this period from January 2010 to December 2010 is Rs. 54,736/-. The learned counsel has not been able to demarcate the amount for which the earlier order does not apply - There are no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant. After taking note of the submissions made by both sides and noting that the period involved in the present appeal overlaps with the period for which the demand has been confirmed, it is held that the appellant is not eligible for refund. The impugned order is sustained. The appeal is dismissed. Issues Involved:The issues involved in the judgment are the eligibility of the appellant for a refund claim u/s GTA service and the overlap of the present period with a previous demand confirmation period.Eligibility for Refund Claim u/s GTA Service:The appellant, registered for Technical Inspection and Goods Transport Agency service, mistakenly paid service tax under GTA service for transporting cylinders to a bottling unit. The appellant filed a refund claim for the period January 2010 to December 2010. The authorities rejected the refund claim, stating that without appealing and obtaining a favorable order setting aside the demand under GTA service for the earlier period, the appellant is not eligible for a refund. The Tribunal upheld the confirmation of demand of service tax on GTA service for the period 1.10.2009 to 30.9.2010. The appellant failed to demarcate the amount not covered by the earlier order, leading to the dismissal of the appeal and denial of the refund claim.Overlap with Previous Demand Confirmation Period:The Final Order dated 1.5.2019 confirmed a demand for various services, including GTA service, for the period 1.10.2009 to 30.9.2010. The refund claim period of January 2010 to December 2010 overlaps with this confirmed demand period. The Tribunal found no merit in the appeal, as the appellant did not establish any portion of the amount not covered by the earlier order. Consequently, the appellant was deemed ineligible for a refund, and the impugned order was upheld, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.Conclusion:The appellant's refund claim for mistakenly paid service tax under GTA service was rejected due to the overlap with a previously confirmed demand period. The failure to establish any portion of the amount not covered by the earlier order led to the dismissal of the appeal and denial of the refund claim.