TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (2) TMI 580
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d an application for refund of service tax amounting to Rs. 9,40,343/- on the grounds that they had entered into an agreement with M/s. Diageo Radico Distrilleries Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as M/s. DRDPL) for providing services of procurement and manufacturing of goods, Business Support, Sales and Distribution of Goods for which the consideration for the services and service tax was paid by DRDPL to them and accordingly due service tax was deposited, but later on DRDPL terminated the said service agreement with the appellants and the services were not provided by the appellants. Upon termination of agreement, the appellants returned the consideration alongwith service tax received to DRDPL. Since the appellants had already deposite....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vice and service tax to DRDPL, which had been received from them and a refund claim of service tax paid amounting to Rs. 9,40,343/- was filed on 09.07.2009. (ii) That the adjudicating authority has held that the refund claim was not supported by documentary evidence. It is submitted that the findings of the adjudicating authority are not sustainable as the appellants had submitted sufficient documents to show that the amount had been received by the appellants from DRDPL and the same was reverted back to them. The appellants place reliance on the General Ledger Account of DRDPL and Ledger Account of the appellants in the books of appellants wherein it is evident that the appellants had received advance ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....; (iii) For the findings of the adjudicating authority that the refund claim is legally not sustainable, reliance is placed on the Guidance Notes dated 20.06.2012 clarifying the provisions of the Finance Act, 2012 wherein question was raised whether deposits returned on cancellation of an agreement to provide a service, will be considered for service. Further, the appellants had paid excess service tax as a result of mistake and this situation is also recognized in the clarification which provides that if the consideration has been returned, then it is not a consideration for service. Reliance is also placed on the decision in the case of Prachar Communications Ltd. Vs. CCE - 2006 (2) STR 492 (Tri. Mum.) and CC....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bsp; From the above, I find that the appellants paid the above detailed amounts to M/s. DRDPL on 31.10.2008, which were received by them in the months of July to September, 2008, detailed above, However, on perusal of the copy of Balance Sheet of the company provided by the appellants, I note that the appellants have declared only an amount of Rs. 1,32,000/- against the Head LOANA AND ADVANCED -Claims and Duties recoverable from Excise Department in their balance sheet for the year 2008-09. The appellants have not brought out anything on record to suggest that the amount of Rs. 9,40,343/- was pending receipt from Service Tax department being refund of the service tax paid as ....