2018 (5) TMI 1305 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - time limitation - section 11B of CEA - Held that - reliance placed upon the decision in the case of CCE, Coimbatore vs. GTN Engineering India Ltd. 2011 (8) TMI 960 - MADRAS HIGH COURT wherein it has been held that the relevant date for computing one year under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is to be determined by complying Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and the assessee can file the refund claim for a quarter and the last day of the quarter has to be considered for determining the limitation in terms of Section 11B. There is no infirmity in the impugned order whereby the Commissioner (A) has only remanded the case back to the original adjudicating authority for a fresh adjudication keeping in view the law laid down by various appellate authorities - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection based on specified services not approved by Unit Approval Committee, Commissioner's remand order, interpretation of limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
The Tribunal heard two appeals filed by the Revenue against an order passed by the Commissioner (A) remanding the matter to the original authority for deciding the refund claim of the assessee. The appeals were disposed of together due to a common impugned order. The background of the case involved the assessee filing two refund claims for a specific period, which were partially rejected by the Assistant Commissioner. Subsequently, the Commissioner (A) allowed the appeal, setting aside the original orders and remanding the matter. The Revenue, aggrieved by the observations made by the Commissioner (A), filed the present appeals.

The Revenue contended that the original authority rightly rejected the partial refund as certain services were not among the specified services approved by the Unit Approval Committee. The Revenue argued that the refund, as per Notification No. 12/2013-ST, is permitted only for specified services approved by the Committee, which did not include the services in question. Additionally, the Revenue raised the issue of limitation, citing a precedent related to the computation of one year under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. On the other hand, the authorized representative for the appellant supported the Commissioner (A)'s decision to remand the matter for a fresh adjudication.

After considering the submissions, the Tribunal found no fault in the impugned order where the Commissioner (A) remanded the case back to the original adjudicating authority for a fresh adjudication. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's order, emphasizing compliance with the legal principles established by appellate authorities and the High Court. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed both appeals of the Revenue, confirming the remand for a fresh adjudication of the refund claim. The operative portion of the order was pronounced in open court on 24/04/2018.