9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (2) TMI 658 - AT - Service TaxRejection of refund claim - Bar of limitation - filing of refund application within one year from the end of the quarter in which export was made - Held that - First appellate authority has dismissed the appeals of the appellant on the grounds of time bar only. Appellant has now brought out CBEC Circular dated 06.7.2009 to argue that one year period will start form the quarter ending as per exemption notification. These aspects were not raised before the first appellate authority. As the arguments taken by the appellant during hearing and as per their written submission received on 24.7.2014 were not argued before the first appellate authority, therefore, the case is required to be remanded back to the first appellate authority. Appellant should raise all the issues before the first appellate authority and Commissioner (Appeals) should dispose of the appeals considering all the issues raised by the appellant during the course of the hearing. Needless to say that first appellate authority will extend an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant before deciding the matter in remand proceedings. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
1. Filing of multiple appeals by the appellant. 2. Rejection of refund claim as time-barred. 3. Interpretation of Rule 3(2)(b) of the Export of Service Rules, 2005. Issue 1: Filing of multiple appeals The appellant filed a single appeal regarding two orders-in-original passed by the Adjudicating authority, which required two appeals as per CESTAT procedure. The appellant filed additional appeals unnecessarily. Upon request, one appeal and a COD application were withdrawn. The remaining appeal and COD application were allowed to proceed, leading to the hearing of both appeals. Issue 2: Rejection of refund claim The appellant argued that their refund claim was filed within the prescribed time, supported by a CBEC circular. The Revenue contended that the appellant did not provide pleadings in the grounds of appeal and sought to condone the delay in filing the refund claim. The first appellate authority dismissed the appeals based on the time-bar issue. The Tribunal noted that the appellant's arguments and submissions were not raised before the first appellate authority. Therefore, the case was remanded back for the appellant to present all issues before the Commissioner (Appeals) for a comprehensive review. The first appellate authority was directed to provide a personal hearing to the appellant during the remand proceedings. Issue 3: Interpretation of Rule 3(2)(b) of the Export of Service Rules, 2005 The main issue in the proceedings was the rejection of the refund claim as time-barred and the application of Rule 3(2)(b) of the Export of Service Rules, 2005. The Tribunal found that the appellant had not raised certain arguments and submissions before the first appellate authority, necessitating a remand for a complete consideration of all issues. Ultimately, the appeals filed by the appellant were allowed by remanding them to the first appellate authority for a fresh review. This detailed analysis of the judgment addresses the issues related to the filing of multiple appeals, the rejection of the refund claim, and the interpretation of Rule 3(2)(b) of the Export of Service Rules, 2005. The Tribunal's decision to remand the case emphasizes the importance of presenting all relevant arguments and submissions before the appellate authority for a fair and comprehensive review of the case.
|
