2022 (6) TMI 1454 - AT - Service Tax

Seeking directions to the Revenue to implement the Final Order dated 25 January 2018 passed by this Tribunal in its favour - HELD THAT - It is found from the records and from the Final Order that the refund applications covering various periods were filed and were rejected by the Assistant Commissioner and such rejections were upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). By the Final Order dated 25 January 2018 held that the appellant was entitled to the refund claimed in these applications and allowed the appeal with consequential relief. It was incumbent upon the Revenue to implement the Final Order and give the refund. Therefore the Assistant Commissioner was wrong in stating that again a Refund Application must be filed within one year of the Final Order. If he had read the Final Order even once it would have been clear to him that the Refund applications were filed long ago under Section 11B and it was their rejection which was the subject matter of the Final Order. It is found appropriate to direct the Principal Chief Commissioner Of Chief Commissioner of Central Goods Services Tax (Delhi Zone) C.R. BUILDING I.P. ESTATE NEW DELHI-110109 in whose jurisdiction all the divisions and Commissionerates of the Zone fall to direct the appropriate officer to sanction the refund along with appropriate interest forthwith. Application allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in processing refund claims by the Revenue department despite a favorable Final Order.
2. Objections raised by the Revenue department regarding registration and timely filing of refund applications.
3. Failure of the Revenue department to identify the successor office responsible for processing refund claims.
4. Direction sought by the appellant for the implementation of the Final Order and payment of applicable interest.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed refund claims which were initially rejected by the Assistant Commissioner and later by the Commissioner (Appeals). However, the Final Order dated 25 January 2018 allowed the appeals with consequential relief, directing the Revenue to process the refunds. Despite the Final Order, the appellant did not receive the refund, leading to the present applications seeking implementation of the Final Order.

2. The Revenue department cited reasons for not processing the refund, including the appellant's alleged lack of registration with the relevant range, failure to file refund applications with the specific office, and a claim that refund applications should have been submitted within one year of the Final Order. The Tribunal found these objections unfounded, emphasizing that the refund applications were originally filed under Section 11B and their rejection led to the Final Order.

3. The Revenue department's failure to identify the successor office responsible for processing the refund claims further delayed the resolution. Despite requests for clarification, the department could not provide clear information on the successor office, causing additional confusion and hindering the refund process.

4. In light of the above, the Tribunal directed the Principal Chief Commissioner of Central Goods & Services Tax to ensure the immediate sanctioning of the refund along with appropriate interest. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of timely action to prevent further accrual of interest on the Revenue, highlighting the need for swift resolution within three weeks to benefit both the appellant and the Revenue department.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the miscellaneous applications, emphasizing the necessity of promptly implementing the Final Order to facilitate the refund process and prevent additional financial burdens on the Revenue department.