2015 (9) TMI 307 - AT - Service Tax

Denial of refund claim - Amount paid under protest - relevant date - period of limitation - GTA service and business auxiliary service - Held that - appellant had paid the amount during the course of investigation on the advice given by the investigating officer (it might be force) and after adjudication process, if the demand is dropped, the amount deposited has to be considered as pre-deposit or a deposit. Therefore in this case also, the limitation has to be accounted from the date of the adjudication order and not from the date of deposit of the amount. Therefore I do not find anything wrong in the impugned order - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues: Appeal against refund claim allowed by Commissioner (Appeals), Limitation period for filing refund claim.

Issue 1: Appeal against refund claim allowed by Commissioner (Appeals
The case involved an appeal by the Revenue against the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing a refund claim by the party. The appellant had paid the service tax correctly but filed a refund claim beyond the specified period. The Revenue argued that the claim was rightly rejected due to the delay in filing. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) relied on previous decisions to support the view that if a payment was not voluntary and made under protest, it could not be rejected solely on the ground of limitation. The Commissioner also cited a Tribunal decision where it was held that payments made pending investigation should be considered as deposits, and the limitation should be calculated from the date of the adjudication order. The Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner's reasoning and rejected the appeal, emphasizing that the limitation period should start from the adjudication order, not the date of deposit.

Issue 2: Limitation period for filing refund claim
The main contention in the case was the limitation period for filing a refund claim. The appellant had paid the service tax in 2005-06 and filed the refund claim in 2010, beyond the specified period. The Revenue argued that the claim was rightly rejected due to the delay in filing. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) considered the circumstances under which the payment was made, citing previous decisions to support the view that if a payment was not voluntary and made under protest, it could not be rejected solely on the ground of limitation. The Commissioner also referred to a Tribunal decision where it was held that payments made pending investigation should be considered as deposits, and the limitation should be calculated from the date of the adjudication order. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, emphasizing that the limitation period for filing a refund claim should start from the adjudication order, not the date of deposit.

By analyzing the judgment, it is evident that the Tribunal focused on the interpretation of the limitation period for filing a refund claim in cases where payments were made under certain circumstances. The decision highlighted the importance of considering the nature of the payment and the timing of the adjudication order in determining the applicability of the limitation period. The case serves as a precedent for similar situations where refund claims are disputed based on the timing of the payment and the subsequent adjudication outcome.