2015 (6) TMI 120 - AT - Service Tax

Rejection of the refund claim - service tax was paid under protest - Bar of limitation - Held that - adjudicating authority has held that no service tax is payable for the period prior to 18.04.2006. It clearly evident from the above order that the appellants have paid the service tax amount of ₹ 18,24,156/- under protest on 14.08.2008. When the demand was dropped for the period prior to 18.04.2008, they are eligible for the consequential refund and they have rightly filed the refund claim on 05.12.2011, which is well within the time limit of one year from the date of order. Hence, the appellants are rightly entitled for the refund as the service tax was paid under protest and no time limit applies. - appellate authority has gone beyond the adjudication order and the show cause notice and taken relevant date as the date of re-submission of the refund claim and the appellate order is beyond the scope of adjudication order. - it is established from the records that the appellants have paid the service tax under protest, the question of time bar does not arise - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim time bar under service tax reverse charge mechanism.

Analysis:
The appeal stemmed from an order-in-appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) rejecting the appellant's refund claim as time-barred. The appellant sought a refund of service tax paid under reverse charge mechanism, which was initially dropped by the adjudicating authority. The appellant contended that the time limit did not apply as they paid the tax under protest pending adjudication. The dispute revolved around the timeliness of the refund claim submission.

The appellant argued that they paid service tax under protest and promptly filed the refund claim within the stipulated one-year period. The appellant's submission highlighted the sequence of events, emphasizing the timely filing of the refund claim. The appellant also addressed the issue of providing photocopies of GAR Challans as evidence of payment, stating that original challans were submitted before the adjudicating authority.

On the contrary, the respondent reiterated the findings of the lower authorities, emphasizing the time-bar aspect of the refund claim. The respondent relied on a specific case to support their argument regarding the rejection of the refund claim due to being filed beyond the one-year limit.

Upon careful consideration, the tribunal analyzed the events and the order-in-original dated 22.12.2010, which confirmed the payment of service tax under protest by the appellant. The tribunal noted that the demand was dropped for the period before 18.04.2006, making the appellant eligible for a refund. The tribunal observed that the appellant filed the refund claim within the prescribed time limit and was entitled to the refund due to paying the service tax under protest.

The tribunal further highlighted discrepancies between the adjudication order and the appellate authority's decision, noting that the latter went beyond the scope of the former. Considering the appellant's payment under protest, the tribunal concluded that the question of time bar did not apply. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal and granting the appellant the refund.

In conclusion, the tribunal's decision centered on the timely filing of the refund claim, the appellant's payment under protest, and the eligibility for a refund based on the adjudication order. The tribunal's analysis emphasized the legal aspects of the case, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant and overturning the lower authorities' decisions.