2014 (8) TMI 1065 - AT - Service Tax

Omission to include the fact in the order that Matter remanded to original adjudicating authority - Commissioner (A) directed the claimant to file a request for extending the period of time for filing refund claim beyond six months and thereafter the matter should be decided - Held that - it is appropriate that the matter should be remanded to original adjudicating authority by us at this stage itself. In our opinion, it is not necessary for the appellant to file separate request for extension of time for filing the refund claim and if the refund claim is being filed late, in the claim itself they can seek extension of time also and this can be considered by the original adjudicating authority. In any case, since the matter is being remanded, the claimant can file a separate request for extension of time and the original adjudicating authority shall proceed to decide the matter in accordance with the directions of the Commissioner (A).

Summary

Issues: Omission in impugned order, remand to original adjudicating authority, delay in filing claim, condonation of delay, rejection of refund claim, time bar aspect, appeal allowed, setting aside original order, extension of time for filing refund claim

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore dealt with the issue of an omission in the impugned order by the Commissioner (A) regarding the remand of the matter to the original adjudicating authority for a fresh decision. The Tribunal noted that although the Commissioner's observations indicated a decision to remand the matter, the specific inclusion of this fact was missing in the order. The Tribunal emphasized the need for the Assistant Commissioner to exercise discretionary powers by considering the facts of the case, especially when dealing with delay in filing a claim and seeking condonation for the same. The judgment highlighted that both aspects can be addressed together without the need for separate proceedings. The Tribunal pointed out that the refund claim was rejected solely due to the delay in seeking condonation within the stipulated period, without a merit-based assessment of the request. Consequently, the adjudicating authority was directed to decide on the time bar aspect based on the appellant's submissions and proceed accordingly.

Furthermore, the Tribunal clarified that the claimant could seek an extension of time for filing the refund claim within the claim itself, eliminating the necessity for a separate request. In the event of a late filing, the claimant could include a request for an extension, which the original adjudicating authority should consider. As the matter was remanded, the claimant was permitted to file a separate request for an extension of time, and the original adjudicating authority was instructed to proceed with the decision in line with the Commissioner's directions. The judgment underscored the importance of addressing all relevant aspects, including time bar considerations, in a comprehensive manner to ensure a fair and just decision.