2019 (3) TMI 113 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 read with Notification No. 27/2012 dated 18.06.2012 - non-speaking order - principles of natural justice - Held that - The impugned order has been passed without giving proper reasons and without considering the facts involved in the case. Further the Commissioner (Appeals) has only given general principles for granting the refund without adverting to the facts of the present case. Further it is found that the impugned order has been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing. The impugned order which is passed in complete violation of the principles of natural justice and without considering the facts and the grounds of appeal is liable to be set aside. Matter remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to pass a de novo order after considering the facts and the grounds of appeal and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner(Appeals)
- Refund claims under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004
- Allegations and rejection of refund claims
- Violation of principles of natural justice in passing the impugned order
- Lack of proper reasoning and consideration of facts in the impugned order
- Setting aside the impugned order and remanding the case for de novo order

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed three appeals against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) regarding refund claims under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. The appeals were disposed of collectively due to the identical issue involved in all three cases.

2. The appellant, a subsidiary of a US company, provided software development and marketing services. Refund claims were filed based on the nature of services rendered falling under 'Information Technology Software Service' and 'Business Auxiliary Service'. Show-cause notices were issued leading to partial sanction and rejection of refund claims by the original authority.

3. The appellant contended that the impugned order lacked sustainability in law, deviated from facts, and violated natural justice principles. The order failed to consider the appellant's submissions, the Order-in-Original, or the grounds of appeal. The appellant argued that the order provided generic guidelines without specific reasoning, exceeding the show-cause notice's scope.

4. Citing legal precedents, the appellant emphasized the need for reasoned orders, adherence to natural justice, and proper consideration of facts. The appellant highlighted the absence of a personal hearing before passing the impugned order, further supporting the claim of procedural irregularities.

5. In response, the AR defended the impugned order, leading to a detailed consideration of submissions from both parties. Upon review, the Tribunal found the impugned order lacking in proper reasoning, factual consideration, and adherence to natural justice principles. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the case to the Commissioner(Appeals) for a de novo order within three months, emphasizing the importance of considering facts and providing a fair hearing.

6. The Tribunal's decision to remand the case for a fresh order aimed to rectify the procedural deficiencies and ensure a fair and reasoned adjudication process, aligning with legal principles and precedents cited during the proceedings.