2025 (6) TMI 1010

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed a refund claim for Rs.1,83,700/- on 28.12.2018 as they claimed that they had deposited this amount in excess to their service tax liability under the Management or Business Consultant Services for the month of January, 2017 alongwith copy of service tax return for the period April, 2016 to September, 2016, October, 2016 to March, 2017 and April, 2017 to June 2017. They have also filed copy of challan no.00041 dated 09.01.2017 for Rs.1,83,677/- and challan no.00065 dated 24.05.2017 for Rs.1,83,820/-. 2.3 On scrutiny of refund claim, it was observed that appellant have filed refund claim, claiming that they have deposited the tax twice against the tax liability for the month of January, 2017 i.e. for the month of January, 2017 vide challan No.00041 and in the month of May, 2017 vide challan No.00065. The refund claim for the amount deposited in the month of January, 2017 and in May, 2017 was filed on 28.12.2018 i.e. beyond the period of one year from the date of payment off service tax in terms of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 made applicable to service tax matters vide Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2.4 A show cause notice dated 12.03.2019 was issued to ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cilities which are in the nature of benefits to the trade has been circumscribed under certain restrictions in order to have some finality in the matter of collection of taxes, and such regulated provision has to be followed in letter and spirit as it can lead to chaos in the administration of taxation. 6. I find that the reliance placed on the decisions of the tribunal in which the Hon'ble CESTAT treated them as mere deposits and allow and the refunds even after the limitation period was over, is not the intention of the legislature which was already pronounced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. Versus UOI reported in 1997 (89 ELT 247) and the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of M/s 3E Infotech is also found to be contrary to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mafatlal Industries. On the Issue of refunds of duty paid under mistake of Law, The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mafatlal Industries has categorically held that the theory for claiming refund within a period of three years from the date of discovery of mistake of law is disapproved and refund of duties is to be claimed under Section 118....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....KC respectively) by the party vide CIN 02600122405201700065 dated 24.05.2017 (total amount deposited in challan is Rs.183820/-), The party also stated that the liability of the month January 2017 had also been deposited vide another challan No. 00041 dated 09.01.2017 amounting to Rs.183677/-(Rs.171423/- as service tax+ Rs.6127 as Swachh Bharat Cess Rs.6127/- as Krishi Kalyan Cess). On perusal of challan No. 00041 dated 09.01.2017, it is found that the amount has been deposited by the party in excess against the liability occurred during the month of January 2017 but the party had not mentioned any amount in the column of service tax paid in advance in part 'C' of the relevant ST-3 return i.e. for the period October 2016 to March 2017. It is also observed that the Registration No. AAFCG3217KSD002 for providing the services under the category of under the Management or Business Consultant Services had been issued by the competent authority on 05.12.2013 and the party has not provided the evidence regarding the challan No. 00041 dated 09.01.2017 for depositing Rs.183677/- (Rs.171423/- as service tax + Rs.6127 as Swachh Bharat Cess + Rs.6127/- as Krishi Kalyan Cess) as the same....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....5 Challan No.00041 do not figure in the said list, hence, the amount paid against this challan was never utilized for payment of service tax by the appellant, as this amount do not get reflected in the ST-3 returns for the relevant period. This was never utilized for payment of service tax and cannot be said to be a tax paid. This amount was taken to be advanced deposit of tax with the government which could have been utilized for payment of tax by the appellant at any point of time, comparable to the deposits made in the account current. 4.6 In respect of such advanced deposits or deposits made in the account current there is no period of limitation provided by the Section 11B as it do not acquire such a character. 4.7 Section 11B(2) recognizes that such unspent deposits laying in balance are to be refunded to the claimant without even examining the issue of unjust-enrichment. The said Section is reproduced below:- "Section 11B (2) [(2) If, on receipt of any such application, the [Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise] is satisfied that the whole or any part of the "[duty of excise and interest, if any, paid on su....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....provisions contained in sub-rule (1), every person liable to pay service tax, may, on his own volition, on, pay an amount as service tax in advance, to the credit of the Central Government and adjust the amount so paid against the service tax which he is liable to pay for the subsequent period: PROVIDED that the assessee shall,- (i) intimate the details of the amount of service tax paid in advance, to the jurisdictional Superintendent of Central Excise within a period of fifteen days from the date of such payment; and (ii) indicate the details of the advance payment made, and its adjustment, if any in the subsequent return to be filed under section 70 of the Act. Rule (4A) [(4A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (4), where an assessee has paid to the credit of Central Government any amount in excess of the amount required to be paid towards service tax liability for a month or quarter, as the case may be, the assessee may adjust such excess amount paid by him against his service tax liability for the succeeding month or quarter, as the case may be." 4.10 Thus, once it is admitted that the amount paid under challan no.0004....