2015 (11) TMI 335 - AT - Service Tax

Denial of refund claim - CHA and terminal handling charges - Held that - Perusal of the adjudication order shows that learned adjudicating authority while sanctioning refund of ₹ 36,644/- has thoroughly examined the liability aspect of the respondent and also relevancy of the input services which was CHA and terminal handling charges suffering service tax. He held that such services were integrally connected with the export. He has also examined the documents furnished before him in support of claim of refund. - When an elaborate order has been passed by the learned adjudicating authority, interference to the order of that authority is undesirable on merit and unproductive for the Tribunal for which Revenue appeal is dismissed. Also dismissal is desirable on the count of pecuniary limit prescribed for the appeal by the Board to reduce the dispute without repetitive litigation in appeal. - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Timeliness of the appeal filed by Revenue under section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994.
2. Merit of the appeal based on the departmental norms and the connection of services with export of tea.

Issue 1: Timeliness of the appeal
The Revenue appealed against the dismissal by the Commissioner (Appeals) due to the appeal being filed beyond the limitation prescribed by section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal accepted Revenue's submission, citing the timely filing of the appeal within three months of the order by the adjudicating authority, as per the provisions of sub-section (2) and (3) of section 84. The Tribunal referred to a Supreme Court case, CCE, Delhi III Vs. M/s. Kap Cones, to support Revenue's stance on the issue of limitation, ultimately ruling in favor of the Revenue on this ground.

Issue 2: Merit of the appeal
Regarding the merit of the appeal, the departmental norm suggested not filing an appeal when the demand is below Rs. 5 lakhs. Additionally, the respondents argued that the services in question were integrally connected with the export of tea. The adjudicating authority, in sanctioning a refund of Rs. 36,644, thoroughly examined the liability aspect of the respondent and the relevance of the input services, such as CHA and terminal handling charges subject to service tax. The authority found these services to be integrally connected with the export and reviewed the documents provided in support of the refund claim. The Tribunal noted that interference with the authority's detailed order on merit would be undesirable and unproductive, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal also emphasized the importance of adhering to the pecuniary limit set by the Board to reduce disputes and avoid repetitive litigation in appeals.

This judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHENNAI addressed the issues of the timeliness of the appeal filed by Revenue under section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994, and the merit of the appeal based on departmental norms and the connection of services with the export of tea. The Tribunal upheld Revenue's appeal on the grounds of timeliness, citing relevant legal provisions and a Supreme Court case. On the merit of the appeal, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of not interfering with the detailed order of the adjudicating authority and highlighted the significance of adhering to departmental norms and pecuniary limits to streamline dispute resolution processes.