2024 (5) TMI 1222 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim to be time barred - Relevant date - Date of order-in-original or Date of payment - Work contract service falling u/s 65 of the Finance Act, 1994 - short payment of service tax of the same amount - HELD THAT - Undisputedly there was no service tax liability on the party hence there was no question of short payment. The amount deposited by the appellant continues to remain as deposit without acquiring the character of tax without the same being appropriated against the tax liability. Commissioner (Appeal) has in his order referred to the decision of Hon ble Madras High Court decision in the case of Commissioner of C.Ex., Chennai-II Versus Ucal Fuel Systems Ltd. 2011 (9) TMI 903 - MADRAS HIGH COURT allowed this finding. In the present case the appellant relevant date for refund claim would not be the date of payment but the date of the decision for Order-In-Original. As refund claim has been filed within time the order of Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be faulted with. Thus, we do not find any merits in this appeal filed by the revenue and dismiss the same.

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claim denial based on time-barred claim.
2. Interpretation of relevant date for refund claim.
3. Application of Rule 21 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982.
4. Pre-deposit under protest and entitlement to refund.

Analysis:
Issue 1: The appeal was filed against the denial of a refund claim of Rs.57,71,039 based on being time-barred. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal filed by the respondent, leading to the current appeal by the Revenue, arguing that the refund claim was time-barred.

Issue 2: The relevant date for the refund claim was a crucial aspect. The appellant contended that the relevant date for the refund claim should be the date of the decision for Order-In-Original, not the date of payment. As the refund claim was filed within the time limit, the Commissioner (Appeals) decision was upheld.

Issue 3: The application of Rule 21 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 was considered when the respondent repeatedly requested adjournments for the case. The Tribunal decided to proceed with an ex-parte hearing as the issue was deemed to be in a narrow compass and could be decided based on the available information.

Issue 4: The concept of pre-deposit under protest and entitlement to refund was extensively analyzed. The Tribunal referred to various legal precedents, such as the case of Team Hr Services Pvt. Ltd and Nimish Engineering Pvt. Ltd, to support the argument that deposits made under protest and later found to be unnecessary should be refunded. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal based on these legal principles and previous court decisions.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, citing legal precedents and interpretations of relevant laws regarding refund claims, pre-deposits under protest, and the application of procedural rules. The decision upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) ruling in favor of the respondent, emphasizing the entitlement to a refund in cases where deposits were made under protest and later deemed unnecessary.