2014 (5) TMI 505 - HC - Service Tax

Denial of refund claim - Tribunal allowed refund claim - Held that - two circulars dated 20-10-2010 and 17-8-2011 issued by the Central Excise Department. These circulars provide that in the light of National Litigation Policy and with an object to reduce the burden of litigation, appeal shall not be filed where the amount involved is below a particular monetary limit. - Even as the appeal was filed before the issuance of circular dated 20-10-2010, it cannot be disputed that when the appeal came up for consideration for the first time before this court on 4-5-2011 the said circular dated 20-10-2010 prescribing the monetary limit of Rs. 2 lakhs was in vogue. Had the appellant pointed out to the court about that and the description of monetary limit therein, this court would not have issued notice. In any view when the circular was in vogue and the monetary limit was applicable on the date of consideration of appeal, the same would apply - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of legal provisions regarding charges for Terminal Handling and Bill of Lading under Sections 65(105)(zm), 65(105)(zzl), or 65(105)(zzp) of the Finance Act, 1994.
2. Validity of remanding the matter to the Original Authority for deciding the issue of charges for Terminal Handling and Bill of Lading.
3. Applicability of circulars issued by the Central Excise Department on filing appeals based on monetary limits.

Issue 1: Interpretation of Legal Provisions
The appellant-Department raised questions regarding the consideration of charges for Terminal Handling and Bill of Lading under specific sections of the Finance Act, 1994 by the CESTAT. The Department argued that the legal provisions were clear, and the charges should not have been considered under the mentioned sections. The respondent, engaged in manufacturing Alkyd Resins, claimed refunds for Service Tax paid based on notifications and relevant provisions. Show cause notices were issued proposing reductions in refund amounts, which were adjudicated leading to partial rejections. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the respondent, prompting the Department to appeal.

Issue 2: Remand to Original Authority
The Department contested the decision of the CESTAT to remand the matter to the Original Authority for a fresh decision on the charges for Terminal Handling and Bill of Lading. The respondent had filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal, resulting in a favorable outcome for the respondent. The Department's appeal to the High Court questioned the necessity of remanding the issue for a fresh decision.

Issue 3: Applicability of Circulars on Filing Appeals
During the proceedings, circulars issued by the Central Excise Department were presented, indicating monetary limits for filing appeals to reduce litigation burden. The circulars specified that appeals would not be filed for amounts below certain limits, which were subsequently increased. The Department did not dispute the validity of these circulars, and it was noted that no other circular authorized appeals for amounts below the specified limits. As the amounts involved in the appeals were below the prescribed limits, the High Court refrained from delving into the merits of the appeals, ultimately dismissing them due to the smallness of the amounts and the existence of the monetary limit circulars.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeals without delving into the merits due to the amounts being below the monetary limits prescribed in the circulars issued by the Central Excise Department. The legal issues regarding the interpretation of charges for Terminal Handling and Bill of Lading and the remand to the Original Authority were left open for consideration in a more appropriate case.