2023 (3) TMI 67 - HC - Service Tax

Refund of Service tax - export of output services - Constitutional Validity of first and second provisos to the Section 86 (1) of the Finance Act, 1994 - HELD THAT - Considering the fact that the Petitioner s claim for refund had been made in July 2011 and that Petitioner had succeeded before the first appellate authority, the Tribunal will consider taking the decision on Petitioner s applications early. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
- Refund claims rejection
- Appeals before Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeal)
- Appeals transferred to Joint Secretary
- Jurisdiction of Tribunal vs. Revisional Authority
- Petitioner's request for recall/renew of impugned orders

Refund claims rejection:
The petitioner, a private limited company, filed refund claims for service tax paid on input services related to export of output services as per Export Service Rules, 2005. The claims were rejected for certain periods while granted for others.

Appeals before Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeal):
Aggrieved parties filed appeals before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeal) against the rejection of refund claims. The Appellate Authority ruled in favor of the petitioner.

Appeals transferred to Joint Secretary:
Subsequently, Commissioner of Service Tax filed appeals before the CESTAT against the appellate order. The CESTAT directed the transfer of appeals to the Joint Secretary, leading to the petitioner's challenge of this order.

Jurisdiction of Tribunal vs. Revisional Authority:
The High Court noted that the CESTAT's order lacked specific reasons for transferring the appeals to the Revisional Authority. The petitioner contended that the appeal should be heard by the Tribunal, not revised before the Government. The court emphasized the need for clarity on jurisdiction and directed the petitioner to file applications for recall/renew of the impugned orders.

Petitioner's request for recall/renew of impugned orders:
The High Court permitted the petitioner to file applications for recall/renew of the impugned orders, emphasizing the need for clarity on whether the appeal should be heard by the Tribunal or revised before the Government. The Tribunal was directed to consider the petitioner's applications promptly and decide on their merits within specified timelines. The court kept open the contention regarding some appeals being filed below the tax limit and disposed of the writ petitions accordingly.