2020 (1) TMI 1382 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of Service tax - time limitation - case of Revenue is that the appellant has filed refund claim on 09,08,2016 for the period June, 2012 which is highly time barred, the appellant again filed refund application on 13.2.2018 consequent to the order dated 21.3.2016 and the relevant date of filing the refund was 21.03.2016 - Revenue claims that the refund claim is highly time barred - HELD THAT - It is fact on record that initially the refund claim was filed on 29.6.2012, the same was allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on 21.3.2016. Instead of sanctioning the refund claim, the revenue preferred to file appeal before this Tribunal and this Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. Therefore, it is the duty of the Revenue that after the order of this Tribunal, they are required to refund sou moto within 3 months from 1.3.2017. Instead of doing so, the appellant was forced to file refund claim again which was filed on 13.2.2018. The departmental officer did not stop here, they reviewed the order of the adjudicating authority sanctioning the refund and held that the refund claim is barred by limitation without any basis to drag the appellant in unnecessary litigation. The said act of the department cannot be appreciated. As the appellant has filed refund claim on 29.6.2012, the said refund application is still pending for disposal, than how can Revenue officer ask to file refund claim again. The Review order is gross violation of legal principle. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim dismissal as time-barred.

Analysis:
The appellant filed a refund claim under Notification No. 11/2005-ST dated 19.04.2005 for the period April-June, 2012. The claim was rejected on 30.10.2015 but allowed on appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) on 21.3.2016. Subsequently, the appellant was persuaded by the department to refile the refund claim on 13.2.2018. The department then reviewed the order of sanctioning the refund and held it to be time-barred without valid grounds. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue was obligated to refund the amount after the Tribunal's order but failed to do so, leading the appellant to reapply. The Tribunal deemed the department's actions as unnecessary and a violation of legal principles, setting aside the order and allowing the appeal with consequential relief.

This case highlights the importance of adhering to legal principles and timelines in refund claims. The Tribunal emphasized that the Revenue's failure to refund the amount promptly after the Tribunal's order led to unnecessary litigation for the appellant. The Tribunal found the department's review order, declaring the refund claim time-barred, to be baseless and a violation of legal principles. The appellant's initial filing within the limitation period and subsequent reapplication due to departmental persuasion were considered in the decision. The Tribunal's ruling focused on ensuring fairness and proper adherence to legal procedures in dealing with refund claims, ultimately setting aside the order and granting relief to the appellant.