2024 (5) TMI 276 - AT - Service Tax

Rejection of refund claim - GTA Service - time limitation - refund claim is filed after the expiry of time limit prescribed - principles of unjust enrichment - HELD THAT - The scope of remand was a simple factual verification but the original adjudicating authority in sheer violation of judicial discipline has readjudicated the issue about impugned activity to fall or not under the scope of GTA Services. As already observed, the same was not the point raised even in the impugned show cause notice. The orders under challenge in both these appeals are not only an outcome of judicial indiscipline but are also held to be beyond the scope of show cause notice. Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order has tried to distinguish as far as the principles of res judicata shall or shall not apply to the given facts. It is observed that there is a fundamental material change whenOrder-in-Original subsequent to final order of this Tribunal has been passed that Apex Court has decided the issue holding that the activity is covered under GTA - these findings are not sustainable as the classification was not the subject matter of the impugned show cause notice. The entitlement of appellant for the impugned refund, the issue of time bar and the issue of unjust enrichment have already stands decided in favor of the appellant including the issue of classification of the impugned activity of transportation (at least for this particular case). The refund claim has wrongly been rejected. The case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX, RAIPUR VERSUS SINGH TRANSPORTERS 2017 (7) TMI 494 - SUPREME COURT is held to have wrongly been applied retrospectively. The Commissioner (Appeals) have traversed while passing the impugned orders in both these appeals. The order are contrary to the findings of this Tribunal amounting to an act of Judicial indiscipline. Accordingly, the impugned order stands set aside. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of transportation services for coal.
2. Refund claim and its admissibility.
3. Judicial discipline and adherence to previous orders.
4. Jurisdictional authority for adjudication.

Summary:

1. Classification of Transportation Services for Coal:
The appellant, engaged in coal mining, received a Show Cause Notice (SCN) demanding service tax on Goods Transport Agency (GTA) Services under Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM). The Tribunal previously ruled that transportation within the mining area without consignment notes does not qualify as GTA Service, exempting the appellant from service tax under RCM. The adjudicating authority's reliance on the Supreme Court decision in Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Raipur Vs. Singh Transporters to classify the service as "Transport of Goods by Road Service" was found erroneous as the classification issue was not raised in the SCN.

2. Refund Claim and Its Admissibility:
The appellant filed a refund claim of Rs. 1,03,91,677/- post the Tribunal's favorable order. The claim was initially rejected as time-barred but later remanded for document verification. The Tribunal observed that the refund claim was within the one-year limitation period from the Tribunal's final order. The rejection of the refund citing unjust enrichment and classification as GTA Service was deemed incorrect.

3. Judicial Discipline and Adherence to Previous Orders:
The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) and the original adjudicating authority failed to adhere to the Tribunal's previous orders, constituting judicial indiscipline. The Tribunal's final order had attained finality, and the adjudicating authorities were bound to follow it without reclassifying the service.

4. Jurisdictional Authority for Adjudication:
The Tribunal addressed the issue of jurisdiction, clarifying that once a dispute is raised by the Central Excise department, the payment of tax is deemed "under protest" until the final appellate decision. The Tribunal dismissed the department's miscellaneous application for a change in the respondent's name, finding it inapplicable.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders, upheld the refund claim, and emphasized the need for judicial discipline. The order was directed to be sent to the Board for appropriate action against the concerned adjudicating authority. Appeals were allowed.