2019 (8) TMI 746 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - time limitation - period from Apr. 10 to Sept. 10 - Rejection on the ground of mis-classification of services - reason for rejecting part of the refund claim of ₹ 2,69,074/- was that the refund was filed beyond the period of six months prescribed in the notification - HELD THAT - Tribunal had considered the very same issue in the appeal filed by the respondent herein in the case of M/S. ASCENDAS IT SEZ, CHENNAI PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF GST CENTRAL EXCISE CHENNAI SOUTH 2018 (11) TMI 420 - CESTAT CHENNAI and held that Since the service provider is a property manager, they are providing services of operation, maintenance, management also along with marketing services. Therefore, I am of the view that the mis-classification of services in the invoices cannot be a ground for rejection of refund claim. Tribunal had considered the issue of mis-description of services as well as the issue of time bar and both the issues were held in favour of the respondent herein. The very same issue is challenged in the present appeal. The issue having attained finality, I do not think it necessary to go into any discussion. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against rejection of refund claim on grounds of time bar and misdescription of services in invoices.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the department against the Commissioner (Appeals) order which set aside the findings of the original authority regarding the merits of the case and upheld the rejection of the refund claim on the basis of being time-barred.
2. The respondents, approved as co-developers in an SEZ, filed a refund claim for a specific amount. The original authority rejected the claim citing reasons such as services not being approved, incorrect description of services in invoices, and filing the claim beyond the prescribed time limit. The Commissioner (Appeals) considered this appeal along with another one, where a significant amount was at stake.
3. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal for a larger amount but allowed the appeal regarding the issue of services not being approved. However, the rejection of the refund claim on the grounds of being time-barred was upheld. The department appealed against this decision, arguing that misdescription of services and unapproved services cannot sustain.
4. The department's representative argued that the original authority was correct in rejecting the refund claim as the services claimed were not approved. They highlighted the description of services in the invoices and contended that these did not fall under approved services, hence the refund claim should not have been allowed.
5. The respondent's counsel referred to a previous Tribunal order in a related case where the issue of misdescription of services had been considered and decided in favor of the respondent. They argued that the services provided actually fell under approved services, despite the description in the invoices.
6. The Tribunal, in a previous order, had addressed the issue of misdescription of services and time bar in favor of the respondent. Since the issue had already been settled in a previous order, the Tribunal did not find it necessary to delve into further discussion. Consequently, the department's appeal was dismissed.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues of the case, the arguments presented by both parties, and the final decision rendered by the Tribunal based on previous rulings and legal interpretations.