2017 (2) TMI 776 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - export of services - credit relates to export made prior to 14/03/2006 - denial on the ground that provisions of Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 as amended by N/N. 04/2006 dated 14/03/2006 will not apply to the credit earned prior to the said date - Held that - the ground on which the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the refund claim has been discarded by the original adjudication authority itself. In these circumstances, it is not open to the Commissioner (Appeals) to reject the claim on the said ground, which has been discarded in order-in-original - appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim under Rule 5 for service tax credit on exported services prior to and after 14/03/2006 - Denial of refund claim by original adjudicating authority and first appellate authority - Grounds for rejection not part of show-cause notice - Appellant's argument for setting aside the order and allowing the refund claim - Tribunal's decision based on previous case law.

Analysis:
The appellant, WNS Global Services Pvt. Ltd., filed a refund claim under Rule 5 for service tax credit on exported services for two periods, one before and one after 14/03/2006. Initially, Rule 5 did not allow refunds for service exports before 14/03/2006, but a new rule was introduced later. The show-cause notice sought to deny the refund based on the exports made before 14/03/2006. The original adjudicating authority and the first appellate authority rejected the refund claim. The appellant argued that the rejection was based on a ground not mentioned in the show-cause notice and that the appellate authority's order did not address the issues raised. The Tribunal reviewed the case law and found that the ground for denial mentioned in the show-cause notice had already been rejected in a previous case involving the appellant. The Tribunal cited the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, which upheld that the substituted Rule 5 did not distinguish between exports made before or after 14/03/2006, allowing refunds for unutilized credit. The Tribunal concluded that since the ground for rejection had already been discarded by the original authority and supported by higher courts, the appellate authority's decision was unfounded. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside, and the refund claim was allowed.

This judgment highlights the importance of adherence to legal procedures and the need for authorities to address relevant issues raised by appellants. It also emphasizes the significance of precedent and the application of established case law in decision-making processes within the legal framework governing tax refunds and credits.