Mandate imposition of Section 35 of Central Excise Act

Last updated: 03 May 2021

Save Share

Quick Summary

This case involves M/s Al Jamshed Tour & Travels, a tour operator for Hajj and Umrah pilgrims, who claimed a refund of service tax paid on services exempted under the Export Service Rules, 2005. Although the refund was initially sanctioned, an appeal was filed arguing that the refund might have been erroneous if the claimant was unjustly enriched. Consequently, show cause notices were issued to recover the refunded amount.

Court :
CESTAT New Delhi

Brief :
The appellants herein are the private tour operators providing services to the pilgrims for Hajj and Umrah. They are registered with the Service Tax Department. Refund claim of the amount in the above table was filed by the appellants on 30 December 2013 for the period for 01/04/2011 to 31/03/2012 being the amount of of service tax paid on services which got specifically exempted from the payment of service tax in terms of Rule 3 (1) (ii) of the Export Service Rules, 2005.

Citation :
SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 50117 of 2020 (SM)

CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
NEW DELHI

PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. IV

SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 50117 of 2020 (SM)

[Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No. BHO-EXCUS-001-APP-198-18-19 dated
31/08/2018 passed by The Commissioner (Appeals), CGST & Central Excise,
Bhopal (M.P.).]

M/s Al Jamshed Tour & Travels Appellant

VERSUS

The Commissioner, Respondent
CGST & Central Excise,
Jabalpur (M.P.).

WITH
SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 50118 of 2020 (SM)

[Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No. BHO-EXCUS-198-APP-201-18-19 dated
31/08/2018 passed by The Commissioner (Appeals), CGST & Central Excise,
Bhopal (M.P.).]

M/s Al Jamshed Tour & Travels Appellant

VERSUS

The Commissioner, Respondent
CGST & Central Excise,
Jabalpur (M.P.).

AND

SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 50119 of 2020 (SM)

[Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No. BHO-EXCUS-201-APP-201-18-19 dated
31/08/2018 passed by The Commissioner (Appeals), CGST & Central Excise,
Bhopal (M.P.).]

M/s Al Jamshed Tour & Travels Appellant

VERSUS

The Commissioner, Respondent
CGST & Central Excise,
Jabalpur (M.P.).

Appearance

Shri Arya Bhatt, Advocate – for the appellant.

Shri P. Juneja, Authorized Representative (DR) – for the Respondent.

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. RACHNA GUPTA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

FINAL ORDER NO. 51240-51242/2021

DATE OF HEARING : 06/04/2021.
DATE OF DECISION: 06/04/2021.

RACHNA GUPTA :-

Present order disposes off following appeals. The order of
Commissioner (Appeals) being common to them.

2. The appellants herein are the private tour operators providing services to the pilgrims for Hajj and Umrah. They are registered with the Service Tax Department. Refund claim of the amount in the above table was filed by the appellants on 30 December 2013 for the period for 01/04/2011 to 31/03/2012 being the amount of of service tax paid on services which got specifically exempted from the payment of service tax in terms of Rule 3 (1) (ii) of the Export Service Rules, 2005. The said refund claim was sanctioned to them and the amount was refunded by cheque. However, an appeal was preferred against the said refund on the ground that the amount has been erroneously refunded without appreciating as to whether the claimant is unjustly enriched. Accordingly, show cause notices, as mentioned above, were served upon the appellants proposing the recovery of the amount so refunded to them.

To know more in details find the attachment file

FAQ :

The appellants are M/s Al Jamshed Tour & Travels, private tour operators providing services to Hajj and Umrah pilgrims.

The refund claim was based on service tax paid on services that were specifically exempted from payment under Rule 3(1)(ii) of the Export Service Rules, 2005, for the period 01/04/2011 to 31/03/2012.

An appeal was filed on the grounds that the refund might have been erroneously granted without considering whether the claimant was unjustly enriched.

Show cause notices were issued to the appellants proposing the recovery of the amount that had been refunded to them.

The main legal point revolves around the imposition of Section 35 of the Central Excise Act and whether the refund was correctly issued, considering the principle of unjust enrichment.