2023 (9) TMI 869 - AT - Service Tax

Refund/rebate of the Service Tax paid on input services - refund rejected on the ground of non-jurisdiction and non-submission of documents - HELD THAT - This is a case where the original authority has decided the matter afresh based on the directions given by a co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in E-SHAKTI COM PVT. LTD. VERSUS CST 2016 (10) TMI 1384 - CESTAT CHENNAI and M/S. ESHAKTI. COM PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, CHENNAI-II 2016 (11) TMI 1746 - CESTAT CHENNAI , directing him to examine such evidence and pleadings, if any, both on facts and law as well as apply proper law and pass a reasonable and speaking order. The Tribunal being the final fact-finding authority, the direction to apply proper law would entail the original authority examining the refund claim in the light of the proper Notification which is brought to his notice by the appellant during the remand proceedings. Prima facie, the Revenue is questioning the eligibility of the appellant-assessee for refund / rebate under Notification No. 41/2012 ibid. Further, as per the Revenue s grounds of appeal, the assessee had in fact made a claim under Notification No. 41/2012 which was rejected in the said order, which later on came to be appealed against and set aside by this Bench vide above Orders. It is deemed appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remit the matters back to the file of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner (Appeals) shall pass a fresh order on the eligibility of the appellant in terms of Notification No. 41/2012-S.T. dated 29.06.2012 alone and thereafter, pass a speaking order in accordance with law. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
The issues involved in the judgment are the rejection of refund claims, consideration of claims under different notifications, eligibility for refund under Notification No. 41/2012, and the scope of remand orders.

Rejection of Refund Claims:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing and exporting ready-made garments, filed refund claims for Service Tax paid on input services under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit rules, 2004. The claims were rejected on grounds of non-jurisdiction and non-submission of documents. Appeals were filed before the first appellate authority and subsequently before the Bench, leading to remand of the matters for de novo adjudication.

Consideration of Claims under Different Notifications:
The appellant filed claims for refund under Notification No. 27/2012, but the Revenue contended that the claims were entertained under Notification No. 41/2012-S.T. The first appellate authority allowed the Revenue's appeal, stating that claims under inappropriate notifications should not be entertained, even if there were procedural lapses.

Eligibility for Refund under Notification No. 41/2012:
The appellant argued that they fulfilled all conditions under Notification No. 41/2012 for refund/rebate. They maintained that export incentives should not be denied for procedural lapses and cited relevant legal precedents to support their position. The Departmental Representative challenged the original authority's decision to entertain claims under a different notification during the remand proceedings.

Scope of Remand Orders:
The Tribunal directed the original authority to examine evidence and pleadings on facts and law during the remand proceedings. The first appellate authority's decision to allow claims under a different notification was questioned by the Revenue. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matters back for a fresh decision on the eligibility of the appellant under Notification No. 41/2012-S.T.