Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Msp Steel And Power Ltd vs C.C.E. & S.T. Raipur on 20 October, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
WEST BLOCK NO.II, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI-110066.
COURT NO.II
Appeal No.ST/60073/2013-ST[SM]
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 121(ST)RPR-I/2013 by the Commissioner (Appeals) of Central Excise, Raipur-I].
MSP Steel and Power Ltd. Appellant
Vs.
C.C.E. & S.T. Raipur Respondent
Present for the Appellant : Shri Piyush Kumar, Advocate Present for the Respondent : Shri B.B. Sharma, DR Coram: HONBLE MR. D.N. PANDA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Date of Hearing: 20/10/2014 FINAL ORDER NO. ______________DATED: 20/10/2014 PER: D.N.PANDA Appellants contention is that in respect of half year period beginning April 2010 and ending September 2010, the date for filing of service tax return under Finance Act, 1994 was 25.10.2010. But the appellant filed the same on 25.04.2011. Prior to such filing, the appellant says to have made following deposits:
Challan No. Date Amount 00078 18/8/2010 Rs.12,12,599/- 00246 28/8/2010 Rs.17,53,726/- 00496 18/04/2011 Rs.17,53,726/-
2. It was further submission of the appellant that services liability for half year April 2010 to September 2010 was Rs.29,66,324/- whereas it deposited service tax of Rs.47,20,051/- (Rs.12,12,599/- + Rs.17,53,726/- + Rs.17,53,726/-) as above. However due to lapse of time it was not in a position to trace the challan of Rs.17,53,726/- deposited vide Challan No.00246 dated 28/08/2010 and was under confusion as to whether the service tax liability of Rs.29,66,324/- was paid in two strokes as aforesaid. To avoid the litigation, the appellant again deposited tax of Rs.17,53,726/- on 18/04/2011 and interest of Rs.1,90,335/- vide Challan No.00820 dated 21.04.2011.
3. According to appellant the factual evidence as above establishes that the service tax of Rs.17,53,726/- was deposited twice and that amount is refundable to it. Ld. Adjudicating Authority considering the evidence on record, ordered refund of that amount. But Ld. appellate authority against appeal by revenue, denied that refund. Appellate authority without considering aforesaid evidence on record confused and denied the refund for no good reason.
4. Revenue says that factual evidence demonstrate the deposit of service tax of Rs.17,53,726/- twice by challan no.00246 dated 28/08/2010 and by challan no. 00496 again on 18/04/2011. Revenue does not prefer to keep with it double deposit without any basis of law.
5. Order of the Ld. Commissioner (A) demonstrates that the factual evidence was not examined by him in right perspective of the facts and evidence. Particularly reading of para 5.2 of the order shows that liability of the appellant was Rs.29,66,324/- and such liability pertains to half year period from April 2010 to September 2010. The appellant is entitled to refund of Rs.17,53,726/- doubly deposited as per the particulars above subject to verification Ld. Commissioner (A) does not appear to have stated sound reasons in his order to revert the order of learned Adjudicating Authority. Therefore, matter is remanded to Commissioner (A) to examine whether tax has been deposited doubly and such double deposit was made against same liability, if so whether refundable. Exercise of examination of fact and evidence should be completed within a month of this order issuing notice to the appellant and recording reasoned and speaking order the matter should be disposed.
6. In the result, appeal is remanded to Ld. Commissioner (A) to carry out above direction.
[Dictated & Pronounced in the open Court].
(D.N.PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Bhanu 2 3 ST/60073/2013-ST[SM]