2016 (10) TMI 766 - AT - Service Tax

Restoration of withdrawn refund claim - withdrawal of claim on the pressure of jurisdictional Superintendent - services used for export - N/N.41/2007- ST - Held that - It is clear that refund claim was originally filed to the extent of ₹ 2,14,155/- and was reduced by the appellant to ₹ 94,348/-, by withdrawing the excess claim of ₹ 1,19,807/-. The appellant contention that the said claim was withdrawn under the Jurisdictional Superintendent, and Service Tax authorities have to adjudicate the full claim, may be true but cannot be appreciated inasmuch as the appellants never revised their claim subsequently. As such, the original adjudicating authority admittedly could not have adjudicated the withdrawal claim. He has considered the claim as staked by the appellant and have already allowed it. The arguments of the learned advocate that they are entitled to the balance claim in terms of notification issued under Service Tax has no merits, inasmuch the applicability of the notification can be examined only in respect of the claim so filed by the assessee. Appeal disposed off - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund of Service Tax under notification No. 41/2007-ST, withdrawal of excess claim, adjudication of withdrawn amount, jurisdictional Superintendent's pressure, entitlement to balance claim.

Analysis:
The appellant applied for a refund of Service Tax paid on various services used for export under notification No. 41/2007-ST, amounting to ?2,14,156. Subsequently, they withdrew a portion of their claim, reducing it to ?94,348, through a letter to the Deputy Commissioner of Service Tax. The refund claim was then sanctioned only to the extent of the reduced amount. The appellant contended that the withdrawal of the excess claim was done under pressure from the jurisdictional Superintendent and argued that the full claim should have been adjudicated. However, the original adjudicating authority had already allowed the claim as per the reduced amount, as the appellant did not revise their claim subsequently. The Tribunal noted that the applicability of the notification can only be examined in relation to the claim filed by the assessee, and since the appellant did not revise their claim, the withdrawn amount could not be adjudicated separately.

The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appellant's argument regarding the entitlement to the balance claim beyond the reduced amount. Upon considering the submissions and the appellant's letter reducing the claim, the Tribunal found no merit in the appeal. The Tribunal emphasized that the original adjudicating authority had already allowed the claim as per the reduced amount, and the withdrawal claim could not be adjudicated separately. Therefore, the appeal was rejected as the appellant's argument lacked merit in light of the circumstances and legal provisions governing the refund claim process under the Service Tax notification.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decision to sanction the refund only to the extent of the reduced claim amount, dismissing the appellant's appeal seeking adjudication of the withdrawn excess claim. The judgment clarified that the original adjudicating authority had correctly considered the claim as filed by the appellant, and the appellant's failure to revise their claim precluded the adjudication of the withdrawn amount. The Tribunal emphasized that the applicability of the notification was limited to the claim submitted by the assessee, and the appellant's argument for the balance claim was deemed without merit in light of the circumstances and legal framework governing refund claims under the Service Tax provisions.