75th Founding Day Lecture Meeting on “India@2030” Know More

October 2011

(2011) 23 STR 263 (Tri.-Del.) — Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad v. Azzam Rubber Products Ltd.

By Puloma Dalal, Jayesh Gogri
Chartered Accountants
Reading Time 2 mins
fiogf49gjkf0d
Refund — Double payment of service tax by recipient of GTA services — Tax incidence paid by present respondent — Disclaimer certificate produced from transporters — U/s.11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 not necessary that person paying tax has to claim refund — Revenue’s appeal rejected.

Facts:
The assessee, a manufacturer of footwear, availed the services of goods transports agency i.e., for transportation of inputs and final products. The respondents while depositing service tax mentioned the name of the transporter inadvertently on the challan instead of their own name. On realising their mistake, remitted the tax again vide TR6 challan. The respondents filed an application for refund of tax paid by them earlier and submitted a disclaimer certificate from the transporter stating they have no objection in the said amount being refunded to the respondent. The Department contended that the refund could be granted only to the transporter who made the actual payment as per TR-6 challan and not to the respondent.

Held:
The Tribunal observed that any person was authorised to claim the refund if the applicant is able to furnish documents to establish that duty of incidence has not been passed on. It was held that in the present case, the duty of incidence was paid by the respondents and hence the Revenue‘s appeal was rejected.

Download PDF

You May Also Like

(2011) 23 STR 254 (Tri.-Del.) — Desert Inn Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur.

(2011) 23 STR 265 (Tri.-Chennai) — Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore v. Lakshmi Technology & Engineering Indus Ltd.