2018 (7) TMI 1287 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of excess Service Tax paid - Section 11B of the CEA made applicable to Service Tax by section 83 of Chapter V of FA - denial on the ground that the required documents including the invoices were not filed and produced for proper scrutiny of the refund claim - demand of Interest u/s 11BB of the CEA - Held that - The refund claim cannot be treated as filed till it is filed along with all the supporting documents - Tribunal has in case of Reliance Industries 2015 (1) TMI 751 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD held that if the prescribed documents were not submitted with the refund application, the same cannot be treated as complete application. In the present case though the refund application was filed 27.09.2006, but the same was not substantiated by the proper documents. Accordingly the same was rejected by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner - After receipt of the complete documents on 15.02.2011 and their verification Commissioner (Appeal) has vide order dated 29.04.2011 sanctioned the refund claim and set aside the order of the adjudicating authority dated 19.10.2007. Interest in terms of Section 11BB becomes payable to the appellant only after expiry of three months from the date of submission of supporting documents i.e. 15.02.2011. This issue whether the said refund could have been allowed or not on the ground of limitation cannot be part of this proceedings as revenue has not challenged the order of Commissioner (Appeal) date 29.04.2011, on the contrary acting on the said order revenue has made the refund to the appellants. Once having done so they cannot come again in this proceeding to challenge the refund claim on ground of limitation when they have not challenged the earlier order. Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claim under Central Excise Act, 1944 and Service Tax
2. Interest on delayed refund payment
3. Date of filing refund claim and supporting documents
4. Jurisdiction of Commissioner (Appeal) in sanctioning refund
5. Applicability of Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944
6. Validity of the order of Commissioner (Appeal) and jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner

Refund Claim under Central Excise Act, 1944 and Service Tax:
The case involved a refund claim filed by M/s TLG India Pvt Ltd for excess service tax paid during a specific period. The initial claim was rejected due to lack of supporting documents, but later, after submitting the required documents, the Commissioner (Appeal) allowed the refund claim.

Interest on Delayed Refund Payment:
The issue of interest on delayed refund payment arose when the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner did not allow interest for the delay in payment of the refund claim. The Appellant appealed, claiming interest beyond three months from the initial filing date. The Appellant relied on Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which allows interest for delays in refund payment.

Date of Filing Refund Claim and Supporting Documents:
The Tribunal emphasized that the refund claim cannot be considered filed until all supporting documents are submitted. In this case, although the claim was initially filed in 2006, it was only deemed complete when all necessary documents were provided in 2011. Therefore, interest on the refund was payable from the date of submission of supporting documents.

Jurisdiction of Commissioner (Appeal) in Sanctioning Refund:
The Tribunal clarified that once the Commissioner (Appeal) sanctions a refund claim, no further adjudication by the Adjudicating Authority is necessary. The order of the Commissioner (Appeal) is deemed to be an order under the relevant section, and interest on the refund is payable as per the provisions of the Act.

Applicability of Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944:
Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 specifies the conditions for payment of interest on delayed refunds. The Tribunal interpreted this section to determine the date from which interest on the refund should be calculated, emphasizing the importance of timely submission of supporting documents.

Validity of the Order of Commissioner (Appeal) and Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner:
The Tribunal dismissed both the appeal filed by the Appellant and the appeal filed by the revenue. It upheld the order of the Commissioner (Appeal) in its entirety, emphasizing that interest on the refund is payable after the completion of the refund claim process before the adjudicating or appellate authority.

In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected both appeals and upheld the order of the Commissioner (Appeal) regarding the refund claim and payment of interest, based on the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The decision highlighted the significance of timely submission of documents in refund claims and clarified the jurisdiction of the Commissioner (Appeal) in sanctioning refunds.