TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 850
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Order-in-Original dated 29.03.2019. 2. M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (Refinery Division), Halide Refinery, (herein after referred as the appellant) is engaged in manufacturing, storing, and dispatching finished marketable petroleum products of different tariff heads. These products mainly include different grades of Fuel Oils, Lubricating Oils, and Bitumen. 2.1. Based on alleged intelligence, a Show Cause Notice (SCN) bearing C.No.V.ST(15)9/CE/Hal/Adjn/2011/5479 dated 25.03.2011 was issued to the Appellant alleging that they had received "intellectual property service" as per Section 65(55b) of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 from service providers who had established businesses in countries other than India during the period Apr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the facts. 2.3. In the de-novo proceedings, the Additional Commissioner passed the Order-in-Original No. 10/ADC/Denovo/CGST/Haldia/Adjn/2019 dated 29.03.2019 confirming the demand on the ground that IOCL, Haldia had received the taxable service from the foreign service provider and hence was liable to pay service tax, even though IOCL, New Delhi Office had paid the service tax. On appeal, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals-II), Kolkata, rejected the appeal vide Order-in-Appeal No. 29/HAL/ST/2021-22 dated 21.06.2021 . Aggrieved against this Order-in- Appeal (impugned order), the appellant has filed this appeal. 3. The appellant submits that the service tax in question has already been paid by IOCL, Refineries Division, New Delhi vide Cyber Re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Commissioner (Appeals) have disregarded this evidence on the mere technicality that it was not specified that the payment was specifically for Haldia Refinery. The appellant submits that both the Certificates duly provide that the payments were made towards Haldia refinery, and specify the exact amount of tax confirmed in the impugned order. Accordingly, the appellant submits that the impugned order is liable to set aside. 3.1. The appellant relied on the following decisions in support of their contentions; * Devang Paper Mills Ltd. v. UOI 2016 (1) TMI 389 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT * Falah Steel v. UOI 2016 (6) TMI 924 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT * Welspun Corp v. Commissioner 2023 (2) TMI 780 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD * Commissioner v. Tata....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Delhi is involved in centralized procurement of services for various refineries including Haldia Refinery. The invoices were raised by the foreign vendors in the name of IOCL, Refineries Division, New Delhi office and payments were also made by RHQ, New Delhi. 6.2. We observe that the appellant have deposited the service tax in the account of Delhi Commissionerate instead of Haldia Commissionerate. This remittance of service tax in a difference service tax registration of the same assessee is a matter of internal adjustment and the appellant cannot be saddled with the demand of service tax again. Similarly, the issue relating to accounting code cannot be a reason to demand Service tax again. The service tax paid by the Hqrs can be adjust....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....AT KOLKATA * Sahara India TV Network Versus C.C.E. & S.T., Noida [2015 (10) TMI 2037 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], * Neyvili Lignite Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner 2018 (1) TMI 1055 - CESTAT CHENNAI 6.4. From the above judgments, we observe that it is settled that merely because the service tax paid under different registration but by the same company, cannot tantamount to non- payment of service tax. The law does not permit the taxation authority to recover the tax again where the tax on the same taxable event has already been paid, albeit under a different head or accounting code. Hence, the demand of service tax which was already paid cannot be made twice. Accordingly, we hold that the demand of service tax confirmed in the impugned ord....