2016 (10) TMI 282 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - C&F charges - goods exported earlier at which time there was no eligibility for refund, and refund application was submitted on a subsequent date by which time refund became eligible - Held that - it is found that the issue in contention here has been examined in detail by the Tribunal in the appellant s own case 2013 (9) TMI 144 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD , and in the case of East India Minerals Ltd vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Bhubaneswar 2012 (8) TMI 22 - CESTAT, KOLKATA . The Tribunal has also examined the issue in WNS Global Services (P) Ltd. 2008 (1) TMI 94 - CESTAT, MUMBAI . The decision in the WNS Global Services (P) Ltd. Case (supra) was upheld by the Hon ble High Court of Bombay 2011 (2) TMI 503 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT . The decision of the Tribunal in the case of Gujarat Ambuja Export Ltd. 2015 (11) TMI 239 - CESTAT MUMBAI has not examined that the issue in contention in detail. Therefore, the contention of the Revenue cannot be accepted. We find that the issue is settled in favour of the appellants by the above decisions, especially by the decision in their own case. The Hon ble jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in the case of Mundra Port & Special Economic Zone Ltd. 2010 (5) TMI 483 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT has laid down the principle that the earlier decision by the Tribunal in their own case, on the same issue which has reached finality would be binding. At this juncture, the appellants fairly submits that in relation to the refund of C&F charges would not be eligible to the appellants, as the provisions enabling refund of the same was made effective from 01.04.2008 only, whereas the instant refund claim is for a period prior to the said date. - Appeal disposed of

Summary

Issues involved: Eligibility of refund for goods exported earlier when there was no eligibility, reliance on previous Tribunal decisions, binding effect of earlier Tribunal decisions, distinction between different Tribunal decisions.

Analysis:

1. Eligibility of refund for goods exported earlier:
The main issue in this case was the eligibility of a refund for goods that were exported earlier when there was no eligibility for a refund at that time. The appellant argued that they should be eligible for the refund based on the date of filing the refund claim when they were eligible. The Tribunal examined previous decisions, including the case of East India Minerals Ltd., to determine the eligibility for the refund based on the date of filing the claim.

2. Reliance on previous Tribunal decisions:
The appellant relied on a previous Tribunal decision in their favor, which held that they were eligible for the refund based on the relevant notification requirements being satisfied at the time of filing the claim. The appellant argued that this decision should be binding in their current appeal, as established by the decision of the High Court of Gujarat in a similar case. The Tribunal considered the binding effect of previous decisions on the same issue.

3. Binding effect of earlier Tribunal decisions:
The Tribunal analyzed the binding effect of earlier Tribunal decisions on the same issue, emphasizing that decisions reached finality would be binding, as held by the High Court of Gujarat. The Tribunal compared different Tribunal decisions, noting that decisions in favor of the appellants, especially in their own case, should be considered binding. The Tribunal also highlighted the principle of judicial comity and consistency in adopting an approach to a particular issue for the same assessee.

4. Distinction between different Tribunal decisions:
The Ld. Authorised Representative for Revenue argued that a previous Tribunal decision was no longer binding due to a recent decision distinguishing it. However, the Tribunal found that the issue had been settled in favor of the appellants based on previous decisions, especially the decision in their own case. The Tribunal rejected the contention that a recent decision had changed the binding effect of earlier decisions.

In conclusion, the Tribunal held that the appeal was bound to succeed to the extent that the appellants were eligible for the refund based on previous decisions and principles established by the High Court of Gujarat. The appeal was disposed of accordingly with consequential relief granted to the appellants.