2015 (9) TMI 262 - AT - Service Tax

Denial of refund claim - Duty paid along with interest at the instance of Audit team - No proceedings initiated for duty demand - whether the refund made by the appellants is barred by limitation or not - Held that - Appellants debited the Cenvat credit on the instructions of the audit team. The audit has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the disputed issue. Once the debit is made at the instructions of the audit team, the Revenue is under a legal obligation to initiate proceedings for confirmation of the amount in question, by deciding on the disputed legal issue. No such proceedings, by way of show-cause notice stands initiated against the appellants and the deposit so made by them does not stand forfeited or appropriated towards any confirmed demand. As such, in my view, the appellants are right in contesting that deposit made during the audit cannot be held to be falling under the umbrella of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. - Impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Entitlement to Cenvat credit on service tax paid for GTA service.
2. Claiming refund of debited amount after a year.
3. Applicability of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act on refund claims.
4. Legal status of the debit entry made by the appellant.
5. Jurisdiction of audit team in initiating proceedings.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing Printed Circuit Boards, availed Cenvat credit on service tax paid for GTA service used in outward transportation. Discrepancies arose during an audit, leading to a directive to reverse the credit. The appellant complied, debiting the amount and interest without subsequent adjudication by the Revenue.

2. Subsequently, the appellant sought a refund of the debited sum, which was denied due to exceeding the one-year limitation period. The issue in contention was whether the refund claim was time-barred, not the entitlement to the credit itself, as established by a Larger Bench decision and upheld by the High Court.

3. The judgment delves into the applicability of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, emphasizing that the reversal entry should be treated as a deposit, exempt from the limitation period, as there were no adjudication proceedings or confirmed demands against the appellant.

4. It was argued that the audit team lacked the authority to adjudicate the disputed issue, and the Revenue failed to initiate proceedings post the debit entry. The Tribunal's decision in a similar case highlighted that amounts paid on audit directives, not constituting duty, are eligible for refund, as observed in a Board circular.

5. Citing precedents, including the Gujarat High Court, the judgment concluded that the deposit made during investigations should not be subject to the limitation period. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, allowing the appeal with consequential relief for the appellant.