2014 (1) TMI 1505 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - Bar of limitation - Held that - appellant s refund claim was maintainable and tax paid by the appellant under misconception of law was to be refunded. For testing eligibility of the appellant, to refund there was no scope left to re-adjudicate on different point. Only under misconception by both sides litigation cropped in to march to Tribunal in second round. Once the claim is maintainable and there is no direction for examining time-bar, nor there was any foundation in show cause notice - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Maintainability of refund claim filed by service recipient.
2. Eligibility of the appellant for refund.
3. Time-barred nature of the refund claim.

Analysis:
1. The appellant was in the second round of appeal before the Tribunal, where the maintainability of the refund claim filed by the service recipient was in question. The Tribunal had previously decided in favor of the appellant in a prior decision, remanding the matter for a finding on the eligibility of the appellant for a refund. However, the authority went beyond the limited scope of remand and denied the refund as time-barred, even though time-bar was not initially alleged in the show cause notice. The appellant argued that the time-bar was never part of the original allegation.

2. The Revenue representative contended that in the second round of litigation, when it was established that there was no unjust enrichment, the matter was examined from the perspective of being time-barred. The appellant did not succeed on this point, indicating a shift in focus during the proceedings.

3. Upon perusal of the appellate order, it was evident that the appellant's refund claim was deemed maintainable, and the tax paid under a misconception of the law was to be refunded. The Tribunal emphasized that once the claim was found to be maintainable, there was no scope for re-adjudication on a different point, especially regarding the time-bar issue. As there was no direction to examine the time-bar, and no foundation for it in the show cause notice, the appeal was allowed, highlighting the importance of maintaining the original scope of the proceedings and not introducing new elements beyond the initial allegations.