2022 (12) TMI 1333 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of excess Service tax paid - rejection on the ground of limitation that the refund claim was filed on 07.2.2019 consequent to the OIA dated 13.10.2017 - HELD THAT - The letter dated 15.1.2019 filed by the appellant is admittedly not a refund claim whereas, the refund claim was filed on 24.8.2016 which was well within time. Since the refund was rejected, the appellant has taken the matter upto the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and it is that refund which was to be decided by learned Commissioner (Appeals). The refund was supposed to be given by the department on the basis of learned Commissioner (Appeals) order. Even the letter from the appellant was not required moreover, the letter dated 29.1.2019 is not a refund application therefore, the entire basis for rejecting the refund claim being time barred is devoid of merit and fact. Since the appellant is legally entitle for refund on the basis of OIA dated 13.10.2017, the appellant s refund claim is not time barred. Appeal is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of refund application on the grounds of being time-barred.

Analysis:
The case involved the appellant filing a refund application for excess service tax paid, which was initially rejected by the adjudicating authority on 1.12.2016. The appellant then appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals), and the appeal was allowed on 13.10.2017. Subsequently, the appellant requested the sanction of the refund claim on 29.01.2019, which was filed on 24.8.2016. However, the sanctioning authority issued a show cause notice proposing to reject the refund claim as time-barred, leading to the rejection of the claim on 08.5.2019. The appellant, dissatisfied with this decision, filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who upheld the rejection. Consequently, the appellant filed the present appeal challenging the rejection of the refund claim on the grounds of being time-barred.

The appellant argued that the refund claim should not have been rejected as time-barred because the original refund application was filed within the stipulated time on 24.08.2016. The appellant contended that after the Commissioner (Appeals) passed the order, the department was obligated to provide the refund without requiring any further application. Therefore, the letter dated 29.1.2019 should not be considered as a refund application, and the refund claim should not be deemed time-barred. The appellant sought to set aside the impugned order based on these arguments.

On considering the submissions from both sides and examining the records, the Tribunal noted that the letter dated 15.1.2019 submitted by the appellant was not a refund claim, whereas the original refund claim was filed on 24.8.2016 within the prescribed time limit. The Tribunal emphasized that the refund was to be granted based on the Commissioner (Appeals) order, and the subsequent letter from the appellant was unnecessary. The Tribunal concluded that the letter dated 29.1.2019 did not constitute a refund application, and therefore, the rejection of the refund claim as time-barred lacked merit. As the appellant was legally entitled to the refund based on the Commissioner (Appeals) order, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with consequential relief.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the rejection of the refund claim on the grounds of being time-barred and allowing the appeal with consequential relief.