2015 (9) TMI 210 - AT - Service Tax

Denial of refund claim - Bar of limitation - Held that - Commissioner (Appeals) has not discussed the issue relating to limitation and in the interim order passed by this Tribunal, in the case of Apotex Research Ltd & Others 2015 (3) TMI 346 - CESTAT BANGALORE , this issue has been dealt with and it has been laid down as to how the time limit has to be calculated for the purpose of sanction of refund under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004. - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of Revenue.

Summary

Issues: Appeal hearing without respondent's presence, Rejection of certain appeals due to amount involved, Refund claim rejection on grounds of limitation and nexus, Remand for fresh adjudication on limitation issue

In the judgment delivered by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT BANGALORE, the Member (T) presided over the case. The respondent was absent, and a request for adjournment was made by the respondent's counsel, citing the filing of three additional appeals with similar orders-in-original. The learned A.R. for the appellant argued that since the appeals arose from the same order-in-original, there was no harm in proceeding with the appeals listed for hearing without waiting for the other appeals. The Tribunal agreed with this submission and decided to proceed with the appeals listed for the day.

Out of the five appeals listed, only one appeal (No. ST/1497/2010) involved an amount exceeding Rs. 5,00,000. Therefore, the other appeals (Nos. 1498 to 1501/2010) were rejected based on precedents set by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in certain cases. The learned A.R. highlighted that the original authority had rejected the refund claim on grounds of limitation and nexus between input and output services. While the Commissioner decided the appeal based only on the nexus issue, the limitation aspect was not addressed. The A.R. acknowledged favorable precedents on the nexus issue but emphasized the need for the Commissioner to reconsider the limitation issue due to the lack of findings on it.

The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had not discussed the limitation issue. Referring to a previous interim order, the Tribunal outlined the calculation method for the time limit concerning refund sanction under the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004. Consequently, the impugned order-in-appeal was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the original authority for fresh adjudication specifically on the limitation aspect. The remaining appeals by the Revenue were rejected in line with the National Litigation Policy. The order was pronounced in open court, concluding the judgment.