2017 (10) TMI 1409 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of service tax - Reopening of rejected refund claim - Held that - The Deputy Commissioner of Service Tax by his letter dated 22-3-2010 rejected the refund claim. Subsequently the appellant re-submitted the refund claim on 12-5-2010. The adjudicating authority in the instant proceedings sanctioned the refund claim. I agree with the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) that earlier jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner of Service Tax rejected the refund claim which cannot be reopened subsequently by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues: Refund claim of Service Tax in relation to export of goods

Analysis:
- The appellant filed a refund claim of Service Tax amounting to &8377; 1,72,216 in connection with input services used for the export of goods.
- The adjudicating authority initially sanctioned the refund claim, but the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside this decision upon the appeal filed by the Revenue.
- The Deputy Commissioner of Service Tax had rejected the refund claim in a letter dated 22-3-2010. However, the appellant resubmitted the claim on 12-5-2010, which was then approved by the adjudicating authority.
- The appellant's counsel argued that the refund was sanctioned on merit and was resubmitted following Trade Notice No. 5/2010 dated 6-5-2010.
- The Member (J) noted that the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner had previously rejected the refund claim, and opined that this decision could not be revisited by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax.
- Consequently, the Member (J) agreed with the Commissioner (Appeals) and upheld their decision to set aside the adjudication order, ultimately rejecting the appeal filed by the appellant.

This judgment highlights the importance of jurisdictional authority in the context of refund claims and the limitations on revisiting decisions made by higher authorities within the tax administration system. The Member (J) emphasized the significance of adherence to the initial decision made by the Deputy Commissioner of Service Tax and supported the Commissioner (Appeals)'s ruling in this case. The judgment serves as a reminder of the procedural requirements and the binding nature of decisions within the tax framework, ensuring consistency and predictability in the resolution of tax-related disputes.