2009 (2) TMI 696 - AT - Service Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claim of service tax paid under Goods Transport Operators service.
2. Payment made under protest.
3. Grounds of rejection of refund claim.
4. Limitation period for filing refund claim.

Analysis:
1. The appellants paid service tax under Goods Transport Operators service and sought a refund after a Supreme Court judgment highlighted an inapplicable provision under which the demand was raised. The liability was confirmed earlier, but the refund claim was rejected on the grounds of limitation and failure to challenge the original liability order. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that each party must fight their own battle and cannot claim relief based on another person's judgment.

2. In the appeal before the Tribunal, the appellants argued that the payment was made under protest as they were unaware of the favorable Supreme Court decision when they paid. They contended that the limitation period should not apply, citing cases where payments made during disputes were considered under protest. The consultant emphasized that the Show Cause Notice mentioned a lower amount, challenging the validity of rejecting the entire claim based on this notice.

3. The Tribunal considered the facts and submissions, noting that the payment represented the service tax due and had been confirmed by the original authority. The Commissioner (Appeals) decision was upheld, emphasizing that the claim for relief based on another judgment was without merit. The rejection of the refund claim was found to be within the prescribed limitation period, and the argument regarding the Show Cause Notice discrepancy was deemed misconceived and legally untenable.

4. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, stating that the claim was time-barred and rejected in accordance with the law. The discrepancy in the Show Cause Notice was considered clerical and insignificant, as the detailed proposals and orders consistently referred to the correct amount. The plea for considering a lower amount due to the notice error was deemed legally unfounded, and the appeal was dismissed based on the facts and legal principles applied.