2018 (2) TMI 1176 - AT - Service Tax

Jurisdiction - Refund of of accumulated Cenvat credit - case of Revenue is that Commissionerate-I was not having any jurisdiction over the assessee s factory and the refund claim should have been filed with Commissionerate-III who had the proper jurisdiction - Held that - In the absence of any dispute about legality of the refund claim or about appellant s entitlement to the same the setting aside the order by the Commissioner (Appeals) is not justified - In case the officer who sanctioned the refund claim was not having jurisdiction over the appellant it was for him to return the papers back to the assessee for proper filing or to transfer the same to the correct Commissionerate. In any case the appellate authority set aside the order instead of remanding the matter to be re-adjudicated by the proper officer. It is not fit to remand the matter to the proper Commissionerate/Officer as the refund has already been sanctioned and there is no dispute about merits of the refund - impugned order set aside and matter restored the order of the original adjudicating authority with consequential relief to the appellant if any as per law - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues: Jurisdiction of filing refund claim under Cenvat Credit Rules

Analysis:
The appellant, an exporter of services, filed a refund claim of accumulated Cenvat credit with Commissionerate-I, which was sanctioned by the Assistant Commissioner. The Revenue contended that Commissionerate-I lacked jurisdiction over the appellant's factory, and the claim should have been filed with Commissionerate-III. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the Revenue's appeal solely on the jurisdictional ground, setting aside the Assistant Commissioner's order.

The appellant, aggrieved by the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, appealed, arguing that they were registered with Commissionerate-I, filed returns there, and thus filed the claim with the appropriate jurisdiction. The appellant's advocate emphasized that the refund had already been granted, and the division of Commissionerate was administrative, not affecting the validity of the refund.

Upon review, the Tribunal found no dispute regarding the facts or legal entitlement to the refund. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in setting aside the order based solely on jurisdiction, without questioning the legality of the claim or the appellant's entitlement. The Tribunal noted that if the officer lacked jurisdiction, the proper course would have been to return the papers for correct filing or transfer them to the appropriate Commissionerate. Instead of remanding the matter for proper adjudication, the Commissioner (Appeals) unreasonably set aside the order.

Given that the refund had already been sanctioned, and there was no merit dispute, the Tribunal decided not to remand the case to the correct jurisdiction. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order and reinstated the original adjudicating authority's decision, providing any necessary relief to the appellant as per the law.

In conclusion, the appeal was allowed, restoring the original order and providing relief to the appellant as appropriate.