2016 (6) TMI 75 - AT - Service Tax

Stay application for withholding refund - Demand dropped in order-in-original - Respondent stated that once demand has been dropped, even as per the board s circular F, No. 276/186/2015-CX.8A dated 1.6.2015 the refund should not be withheld - Held that - even CBEC circular advises field formations to try and obtain stay only where orders have been passed by Commissioner (Appeals). In this case the order has been passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (and not Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals)). - Stay applications dismissed as misconceived and infructuous

Summary

Issues:
Stay applications filed by Revenue against orders dropping demands raised in show cause notices.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to stay applications filed by Revenue against orders that dropped demands raised in show cause notices. The Revenue filed stay applications along with appeals against orders dated 10.6.2015, 29.6.2015, 2.7.2015, and 30.10.2015. The Revenue expressed concerns that failure to stay the orders might lead to the refund of the amount already deposited by the respondent. The respondent's consultant argued that according to a circular dated 1.6.2015, once the demand has been dropped, the refund should not be withheld. The Tribunal considered the contentions of both sides and found the stay applications to be misconceived and infructuous. The Tribunal highlighted a CBEC Circular dated 1.6.2015, which emphasized the need for obtaining stay orders only in cases where orders have been passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Since the orders in question were passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and not the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), the Tribunal dismissed the stay applications as misconceived and infructuous.

This judgment underscores the importance of following procedural requirements and the specific circumstances under which stay applications should be filed. It clarifies that obtaining a stay order is crucial only when orders have been passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), as advised by the CBEC circular. The Tribunal's decision to dismiss the stay applications in this case was based on the mismatch between the nature of the orders and the criteria outlined in the circular. The judgment serves as a reminder for field formations to adhere to the guidelines provided in relevant circulars and to ensure that stay applications are filed appropriately in line with the specific circumstances of each case.