9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (4) TMI 201 - AT - Service Tax100% EOU - Rebate claim - rejection of rebate for the reasons that the appellant s claim was time-barred - rejection also on the ground that some of the services on which CENVAT credit was claimed did not have nexus with the output services exported - rejection also on the ground that no declaration as required under Notification 12/2005 ibid. was filed and that request for considering the claim under Notification No. 5/2006-CE (NT) dated 14/03/2006 was beyond the scope of show-cause notice - time limitation - HELD THAT - The rejection on the ground that the claim for rebate could not be considered afresh under Notification No. 5/2006 ibid. as submitted by the learned Senior Advocate has already been addressed to in the appellant s own case. It is found that for an earlier period vide Order-in-Original No. 81/2008 dated 07/07/2008 the adjudicating authority himself had allowed the appellant s similar claim under Notification No. 5/2006 ibid. when the initial application was under Notification 12/2005 ibid. and the adjudicating authority had granted partial refund. The matter had travelled up to the Tribunal and this Bench of the Tribunal vide its Final Order 21260/2016 dated 16/07/2014 had affirmed the above order of the original authority. The order of that Bench has become final without there being any further appeal. It is thus clear that when the Revenue has itself granted relief which was thereafter approved by a higher appellate authority Revenue cannot take different stands for different years which would amount to inconsistency - the rejection of conversion of refund claim into rebate is bad in law and unsustainable. Time Limitation - HELD THAT - The reason for rejection namely time bar is also not sustainable since it is clear from the records that the appellant s claim was within a period of one year from the end of the relevant quarter which view has been expressed by the learned Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CCE CST BENGALURU SERVICE TAX-I VERSUS M/S. SPAN INFOTECH (INDIA) PVT. LTD. 2018 (2) TMI 946 - CESTAT BANGALORE . The appeal is allowed.
Issues:
Rejection of rebate claims on procedural grounds, including time-barred claim, lack of nexus between input and output services, failure to file required declaration, and scope of show-cause notice. Analysis: The judgment pertains to an appeal by a 100% Export Oriented Unit regarding the rejection of two rebate claims for specific periods under Notification No. 12/2005-ST. The initial rejection by the adjudicating authority was based on various grounds, including the claim being time-barred, lack of nexus between certain input services and exported output services, failure to file a required declaration, and a request beyond the scope of the show-cause notice. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this rejection, leading to the current appeal. Upon review, the Tribunal found that the rejection was primarily on procedural grounds. Notably, the rejection based on the claim under Notification No. 5/2006 had already been addressed in the appellant's favor in a previous case. The Tribunal highlighted that the Revenue had previously granted relief for a similar claim, which was affirmed by a higher appellate authority. Citing legal precedent, the Tribunal emphasized that the Revenue cannot take inconsistent stands for different years, as it would lead to legal inconsistency. Regarding the time-barred claim, the Tribunal determined that the appellant's claim fell within the permissible period, citing a precedent by the Tribunal's Larger Bench. Additionally, the Tribunal noted that the issue of the nexus between certain services and exports had been settled in favor of the appellant by decisions of various CESTAT Benches. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, granting any consequential benefits as per the law. In conclusion, the judgment addresses the procedural grounds for the rejection of rebate claims, emphasizing consistency in Revenue decisions, adherence to statutory time limits, and the nexus between input and output services. The Tribunal's decision provides clarity on these issues and grants relief to the appellant based on legal precedents and established principles.
|
