Case Law Details
East West Seeds India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of C.E. & ST (CESTAT Mumbai)
CESTAT Mumbai held that as per rule 7B(1) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, the claimant is required to submit a revised return. Accordingly, as the claimant failed to furnish the same refund is not admissible.
Facts- Appellant had entered into contract for trademark fees with its associated enterprise EWSILT for use of trademark wef. 01.01.2017. As on 30.06.2017, the appellant had made provision of Rs.2,28,27,342/- for the contract based on the initial communication from EWŞILT. Accordingly, the appellant paid the service tax @15% on Rs.2,28,27,342/- amounting to Rs.34,24,102/-. Subsequently the period of the agreement got revised to 01.04.2017 to 30.06.2017 and the amount of fee also was reduced to Rs.59,39,180/-. The service tax liability of the reduced fee amount was Rs.8,89,574/-, thus the service tax paid in excess amounting to Rs.25,34,528/- (Rs.34,24,102 – Rs.8,89,574) is claimed as refund.
On account of non-submission of documents, non-revision of ST-3 return, as well as other reasons, the claim of the refund was rejected. Commissioner (A) also rejected the same vide the impugned order. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed by the assessee.
Conclusion- Thus I do not find any merits in the submissions of the appellant to the effect that the refund application can be considered without revision of the return of the self assessment made by them while filing the ST-3 return. It is worth noting the provisions in Service tax law provide for the revision of the return by the assessee himself.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
Judgement is worth to read.