2026 (2) TMI 732

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ged at Vapi. At this stage, the Learned Advocate seeks to place reliance on the Division Bench decision of Kolkata, reported at 2025 (6) TMI 850 CESTAT-Kolkata in the matter of Indian Oil Corporation Limited vs Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise-Kolkata in para 6 of the decision is relevant for the purpose of reaching decision in this case also. The same is reproduced below: "6. We observe that the service tax in question has already been paid by IOCL, Refineries Division, New Delhi vide Cyber Receipt No. 069115009050207000 dated 05/02/2007 for Rs. 42,95,494/-. This payment included service tax of Rs. 8,78,683/- on payment of Euro 2,08,343/- to M/s Axens and Euro 6,000/- to M/s Technip as mentioned in the SCDN No. V. ST (15)9/CE....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....'s Haldia Unit and if at all there is discrepancy of different registration of head office the department could have adjusted service tax paid by the head office against the service tax due of appellant's Haldia unit. Similarly, the issue relating to payment under accounting code 'Scientific and Technical Consultancy Service' can be adjusted against the accounting code 'Intellectual Property Service'. 6.3. As per Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994, read with Rule 2(1)(d)(iv) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, the service recipient is liable to pay service tax under reverse charge mechanism. However, when the service tax has already been paid by one unit of the same legal entity, demanding it again from another unit amounts to double....