M/S. Ambals Explosives vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Salem
- CitationAppeal No.49/2014-ST, dated 06.02.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (A
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Mere admission of liability to pay service tax is not, by itself, proof of the liability; the existence of the liability must be verified on the facts, including whether the service provider in question actually paid the tax collected to the treasury. Where the same service has been taxed in the hands of more than one service provider for the same period, and the appellant seeks refund of the tax it paid, the department must verify whether the earlier service providers deposited the tax they collected; if so, the tax so deposited is refundable to the appellant.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.49/2014-ST, dated 06.02.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Salem]
M/s. AMBALS EXPLOSIVES APPELLANT
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, SALEM RESPONDENT
Appearance:
For the Appellant Ms. S. Sridevi, Adv.
For the Respondent Shri B. Balamurugan, AC (AR)
CORAM:
Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member
Date of hearing/decision 28-09-2015
FINAL ORDER NO. 41316 / 2015
Learned counsel submits that two service providers namely, M/s. Keltech Energies Ltd and M/s. Vetrivel Explosives Ltd., have collected service tax from the appellant for the GTA service provided for the self-same service. Revenue has also collected service tax from the appellant. According to her, self-same service cannot be doubly taxed, for which, the appellant is entitled to refund of Rs. 20,396/- in view of the declaration given by those two service providers that the tax collected by them was deposited. Both the declarations were before authority below. But they ignored that.
2. Learned departmental representative says that the appellant admitted to pay service tax. Therefore, that should not be refunded.
3. Heard both sides and perused the records.
4. Mere admittance is not a proof itself of the liability. It is fact that service tax was collected from the aforesaid two service providers as well as from the appellant. That related to same period for the same service in question. Therefore, department should verify whether the service providers have paid tax to treasury. If so, that should be refunded to the appellant.
5. In the result, appeal is remanded to the Adjudicating authority to carry out the aforesaid direction. (Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(D.N. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER
ksr 03-09-2015
DRAFT Remarks
I II III
Date of dictation 28.09.2015
Draft Order - Date of typing 30.09.2015
Fair Order Typing 03.10.2015
Date of number and date of dispatch 05.10.2015
4 ST/40794/2014
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free