2024 (1) TMI 580 - AT - Service Tax

Maintainability of appeal - monetary limit involved in the appeal - Short payment of Service Tax - Setting aside the appropriation of the refund amount - wrongly availing the Cenvat credit and utilising the same towards payment of service tax liability - HELD THAT - The question referred does not fall in any of the category of substantial questions referred in the instructions as exceptions whereby an appeal would be maintainable even if the monetary limit involved is lower than the prescribed limit. It is not that the present appeal by the Department where the revenue involved is less than what has been fixed for filing an appeal to CESTAT would be maintainable and hence the same needs to be dismissed on that ground itself. The appeal dismissed for low tax effect, leaving the question of law, if any, open.

Summary

Issues involved:
The appeal challenging the setting aside of the appropriation of the refund amount and the rejection of interest on the refund amount.

Issue 1: Setting aside of the appropriation of the refund amount
- The respondent filed a refund claim after a Tribunal order, but the Adjudicating Authority only sanctioned a partial refund.
- The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the appropriation of the remaining amount but rejected the interest claimed by the respondent.
- The department challenged this order, and the Tribunal allowed the respondent's appeal, granting interest on the entire refund amount.
- The department's appeal was delayed due to a defect in filing, which was later condoned.

Issue 2: Preliminary objection on appeal maintainability
- The respondent argued that the appeal was not maintainable due to low monetary effect based on monetary limits set by the Board's Instructions.
- The Revenue contended that the appeal was maintainable as a substantial question of law was involved.
- However, the Tribunal found that no substantial question of law was raised by the Revenue in the appeal memo or synopsis.
- The Tribunal dismissed the appeal on the ground of low tax effect, following the objective of reducing litigation for minor revenue amounts.

In the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI, the issues revolved around the setting aside of the appropriation of the refund amount and the rejection of interest on the refund amount. The respondent had filed a refund claim after a Tribunal order, but only a partial refund was sanctioned by the Adjudicating Authority. Subsequently, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the appropriation of the remaining amount but rejected the interest claimed by the respondent. The Tribunal allowed the respondent's appeal, granting interest on the entire refund amount. Despite a delayed appeal filing by the department, the defect was later condoned. On the preliminary objection of appeal maintainability raised by the respondent due to low monetary effect, the Revenue argued that the appeal was maintainable as a substantial question of law was involved. However, the Tribunal found that no substantial question of law was raised by the Revenue in the appeal memo or synopsis. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed on the grounds of low tax effect, aligning with the objective of reducing litigation for minor revenue amounts.