2016 (5) TMI 610 - HC - Service Tax

Period of limitation - Refund of Service tax - Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 - Held that - CESTAT ought to have first satisfied itself that the services rendered by the appellant was, on facts, amenable to service tax and different from the other three appeals which were heard together - in view of the decision of Tribunal in the case of Alar Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of C.Ex., Delhi-I 2015 (9) TMI 783 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , in so far it has dismissed the appeal of the present appellant is set aside and the appeal of appellant is restored to the file of the CESTAT for a decision afresh in the above terms in accordance with law. - appeal restored

Summary

Issues:
1. Exemption application
2. Condonation of delay in refiling the appeal
3. Appeal against CESTAT order on service tax refund

Exemption Application:
The High Court allowed the exemption application subject to all just exceptions and disposed of the matter.

Condonation of Delay in Refiling the Appeal:
The Court condoned the delay in refiling the appeal based on the reasons stated in the application and disposed of the matter.

Appeal Against CESTAT Order on Service Tax Refund:
The appeal by Alar Impex Pvt. Ltd. was directed against a CESTAT order that rejected the appellant's claim for a refund of service tax as barred by limitation. The Court referred to a previous order in a related case where it was held that the question of refund application processing arises only if the services rendered were liable to service tax. The Court set aside the CESTAT order and restored the appeal to the file of CESTAT for a fresh decision in accordance with law, emphasizing that the CESTAT must first determine if the services were amenable to service tax before considering the limitation aspect.