2017 (8) TMI 797 - HC - Service Tax

Refund of service tax - case of Revenue is that the appellant has not been able to produce any convincing evidence or additional ground in their support so as to deserve any fresh re-look of the circumstances relating to the case - Held that - The Court finds that all the grounds concerning the rejection of the Petitioner s claim for refund by the ACST and Commissioner (Appeals) can well be urged before the CESTAT. At the same time, the apprehension expressed by learned counsel for the Petitioner as noted hereinbefore cannot be stated to be wholly unfounded - this Court, while declining the present writ petition challenging the order dated 28th November 2016, passed by ACST, and the order dated 9th June 2017, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-I), directs that the appeal filed against the said orders by the Petitioner before the CESTAT should be considered by the CESTAT both on the aspect of limitation and on merits - petition on remand to be decided by CESTAT only.

Summary

Issues:
Petitioner's claim of refund of service tax, rejection of refund claim by ACST and Commissioner (Appeals), violation of principles of natural justice, repeated rounds of litigation, expeditious disposal of appeal before CESTAT.

Analysis:
The judgment involves the Petitioner's claim of refund of service tax, which has been a subject of prolonged litigation. Initially, the Petitioner was permitted to file a refund application for early disposal, but the claim was rejected by the ACST due to not filing within the prescribed time period. Subsequently, the Commissioner (Appeals-I) dismissed the appeal, stating that the Petitioner failed to provide convincing evidence or additional grounds. The Petitioner contended that both orders violated the principles of natural justice as they did not address the points raised, including relevant case law.

The Petitioner's counsel argued against the need for repeated rounds of litigation, expressing concerns about further delays and multiple appeals. Reference was made to Circulars and Instructions emphasizing that refund applications should be decided in one go, without piecemeal consideration. The Court acknowledged the grounds raised by the Petitioner and the concerns regarding prolonged litigation, agreeing that the apprehension was not baseless.

Consequently, the Court declined the writ petition challenging the orders of the ACST and Commissioner (Appeals-I) but directed that the appeal before the CESTAT should address both the limitation aspect and the merits of the claim without remanding the matter. Emphasis was placed on expeditious disposal of the appeal by the CESTAT, considering the history of two rounds of litigation already endured by the Petitioner. Ultimately, the writ petition and pending application were dismissed, with the CESTAT instructed to decide on both issues without further remand.