2013 (1) TMI 93 - AT - Service Tax

Rejection of refund claim - Held that - Tribunal vide order dated 15.5.2012 has set-aside the said orders in appeal which was relied to reject the refund claim and allowed the refund claims filed by the appellant. Thus the base of the first appellate authority to reject the claim has already been decided by this Tribunal in favour of the assessee and hence, these appeals also need to be allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
Appeal against rejection of refund claims by the first appellate authority based on reliance on an earlier order challenged before the Tribunal.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to two appeals challenging the order in appeal No. Commr(A)/101 & 102/VDR-II/2011 dated 17.3.2011, where the first appellate authority upheld the rejection of refund claims filed by the appellant after following due process. The appellant's counsel highlighted that the first appellate authority relied on an earlier order dated 24.11.2010, which was challenged before the Tribunal in appeal No. ST/705 and 706 of 2010. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal of the assessee. The departmental representative reiterated the findings of the lower authorities and argued that the final order dated 15.5.2012, in respect of the same order in appeal, was relied upon by the first appellate authority to uphold the rejection of the refund claim.

Upon considering the submissions and perusing the records, the judge noted that the first appellate authority upheld the rejection of the refund claim based on the settled issue by the undersigned, which was already decided in an earlier order. The judge pointed out that the first appellate authority's reliance on his own earlier order dated 24.11.2010 was incorrect, as the Tribunal had set aside those orders in appeal and allowed the refund claims filed by the appellant. Consequently, the judge set aside the impugned orders and allowed the appeals with any consequential relief.

In conclusion, the judgment highlights the importance of adherence to legal principles and precedents in deciding on refund claims. The judge emphasized that the first appellate authority cannot re-examine or review its own order when the issue has already been settled by issuing a final order. The judgment underscores the significance of consistency and adherence to legal decisions to ensure fair and just outcomes in legal proceedings.