The Chennai bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in a recent case dismissed the appeal due to the failure by the appellant to demarcate the service period of Refund claimed on Service tax paid mistakenly on Goods and Transport Service (GTA) of the cylinder.
M/s. Bharat Cylinders, the appellant is registered as an assessee for providing services of Technical Inspection and under Goods Transport Agency service. It was submitted by the counsel Smt. Pallavi Ganesh appearing on behalf of the appellant that they paid service tax under GTA service for transportation undertaken by them for the transportation of the cylinders to the bottling unit.
It was contended that the service tax was paid by mistake and they are not liable to pay service tax as the burden to pay service is under the service recipient. The appellant thus filed a refund claim for the period January 2010 to December 2010 for an amount of Rs.54,736/. The authorities below have rejected the refund claim.
It was submitted that the Tribunal for the earlier period had upheld the confirmation of the demand of service tax on GTA service for the period 1.10.2009 to 30.9.2010. The refund claim overlaps with the present period wherein the demand has been confirmed. Without filing an appeal against such an order and obtaining a favourable order setting aside the demand under GTA service, the appellant is not eligible for a refund.
On perusal of the Final Order,it was evident that there was an earlier demand for various services including GTA service for the period 1.10.2009 to 30.9.2010. The amount involved for this period from January 2010 to December 2010 is Rs.54,736/-. The counsel has not been able to demarcate the amount for which the earlier order does not apply.
A two-member bench comprising Ms Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) and Shri M. Ajit Kumar, Member (Technical) observed that the period involved in the present appeal overlaps with the period for which the demand has been confirmed.
While dismissing the appeal, the CESTAT held that the appellant is not eligible for a refund and upheld the impugned order.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
