2017 (10) TMI 1229 - AT - Service Tax

Maintainability of cross-objections - Refund claim - time limitation - Held that - the Revenue has filed an appeal only with regard to one quarter wherein the Commissioner has held that the same is within time. With regard to other five matters, the Revenue has not filed the appeal. The assessee has not filed cross objection in the appeal filed by the Revenue rather they have filed the cross objection in those cases where the Revenue has not filed the appeal which is not maintainable under law. Cross objections dismissed being not maintainable.

Summary

Issues:
1. Maintainability of cross objections when the Revenue has not filed an appeal.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore was filed by the Revenue against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the time-barred refund claims. The Commissioner had disposed of six appeals, out of which five appeals were admitted by the assessee to be time-barred, except for the claim related to the period January 2014 to March 2014. The Revenue specifically contested the decision regarding the claim within limitation for the mentioned period. During the pendency of the appeal, the other party filed cross objections related to the time-barred claims that the Commissioner had upheld. The Revenue objected to the maintainability of these cross objections, arguing that they were not valid since the Revenue had not filed appeals for those specific cases.

The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both parties. The counsel for the respondent contended that cross objections could be filed if any party was aggrieved by any part of the order issued by the authority. The counsel relied on previous decisions to support this position. However, the Tribunal noted that the Revenue had only appealed against one quarter where the Commissioner found the claim to be within time, while no appeals were filed for the other five matters. The Tribunal also observed that the assessee had not filed cross objections in response to the Revenue's appeal but had done so for cases where the Revenue had not appealed. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the cross objections filed by the assessee in cases where the Revenue had not appealed were not maintainable under the law. As a result, the Tribunal dismissed the cross objections.

In summary, the judgment revolved around the issue of the maintainability of cross objections when the Revenue had not filed appeals for specific cases. The Tribunal ruled that cross objections could not be entertained in such circumstances, leading to the dismissal of the cross objections filed by the assessee.