2021 (7) TMI 1247 - HC - Service Tax

Refund of Cenvat credit - during the period the respondent was not registered as service provider - CESTAT allowed the refund - N/N. 5/2006-C.E. (N.T.), dated 14-3-2006 - notice was served on the first respondent, the same returned with the postal endorsement left as early as 8-6-2019 - first respondent did not even intimate the Revenue about the change of office - HELD THAT - Tribunal stated the legal position that the State should not be enriched at the costs of its citizen. There can be no quarrel over the said proposition. However, the Tribunal failed to consider as to whether the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in passing the common order dated 18-12-2013 allowing the appeals filed by the first respondent-assessee. Several grounds have been raised by the Revenue before the Tribunal, which could be seen from the grounds of appeal annexed in the typed set of papers. The Tribunal was required to examine the correctness of the common order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) with reference to the grounds raised by the Revenue before it - the common impugned order is without any discussion on any of the grounds raised by the Revenue. The matters are remanded to the Tribunal for a fresh consideration in accordance with law after issuing notice to the first respondent-assessee - Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal under Section 35G(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against a common order dated 4-3-2015 made by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai-6. Substantial questions of law regarding refund of Cenvat credit without registration of service provider and consideration of safeguards, conditions, and limitations in Notification No. 5/2006-C.E. (N.T.), dated 14-3-2006.

Analysis:
The appeals filed by the Revenue under Section 35G(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, were directed against a common order dated 4-3-2015 made by the Tribunal. The appeals were admitted based on substantial questions of law regarding the correctness of allowing a refund of Cenvat credit without the registration of the service provider and the consideration of safeguards, conditions, and limitations contained in a specific notification. The Tribunal's impugned order dismissed the Revenue's appeals, citing the legal principle that the State should not benefit at the expense of its citizens, referencing relevant case law. However, the High Court noted that the Tribunal failed to address whether the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in allowing the appeals filed by the respondent-assessee. The High Court found that the impugned order lacked discussion on the grounds raised by the Revenue, leading to the decision to set aside the order and remand the matters to the Tribunal for fresh consideration.

The High Court allowed the civil miscellaneous appeals, setting aside the Tribunal's order and remanding the matters for a fresh consideration. The Court emphasized the need for the Tribunal to issue notice to the respondent-assessee and thoroughly address all the grounds raised by the Revenue in the appeal. The High Court stressed that the Tribunal should conduct a comprehensive review of the case in accordance with the law, leaving the substantial questions of law framed in the appeal open for further consideration. The decision aimed to ensure a fair and thorough examination of the issues raised by the Revenue before the Tribunal, emphasizing the importance of addressing all relevant grounds in the reconsideration process.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal issues, the Tribunal's decision, and the High Court's rationale for setting aside the order and remanding the case for fresh consideration. The Court's focus on procedural fairness and thorough examination of the grounds raised by the Revenue underscores the importance of legal principles and due process in tax matters.