2022 (6) TMI 979 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - unjust enrichment - rejection of refund for non-adherence to conditions of Section 102(E) of the Finance Act - HELD THAT - The issue agitated by the department before us i.e. remand of the matter to the lower authority by Commissioner(Appeals) is no longer existing in view of the passing of the order in remand proceedings. Therefore it is found that the Appeal is infructuous and thus requires dismissal. Regarding the submission of Ld.Counsel for giving a direction to the Ld.Commissioner(Appeals) it is found that the same is not part of the proceedings. Moreover being creature of statute this Bench cannot thus direct the authorities in an issue which is not before us. However Respondents are at liberty to pursue the matter before the Ld.Commissioner(Appeals). Appeal is dismissed as infructuous.

Summary

Issues:
1. Early hearing of the Appeal.
2. Remand of the matter back to the original authority.
3. Admissibility of refund claim.
4. Direction for expeditious decision-making.
5. Infructuous nature of the Appeal.
6. Dismissal of the Appeal.

Early Hearing of the Appeal:
The Respondent filed a Miscellaneous Application seeking early hearing of the Appeal, which was allowed based on submissions made by the Counsel for the Respondent. With the consent of both parties, the Appeal itself was taken up for disposal.

Remand of the Matter Back to the Original Authority:
The Appeal was filed by the department against an Order-in-Appeal which remanded the matter back to the original authority. The Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) directed that a certain party should join as a co-applicant and specified a timeline for the competent authority to decide the application.

Admissibility of Refund Claim:
The proceedings in the de novo adjudication were completed, and it was found that the refund claim was not admissible due to the unjust enrichment clause. The second applicant was also found not entitled to the refund, and the amount was credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund.

Direction for Expeditious Decision-Making:
The Counsel for the Respondent requested a direction to the Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) to decide the matter expeditiously. However, the Bench clarified that they could not direct on an issue not before them, but the Respondents were free to pursue the matter before the Ld. Commissioner(Appeals).

Infructuous Nature of the Appeal:
After hearing both sides and examining the case records, the Bench concluded that the issue of remand to the lower authority was no longer existing due to the order passed in the remand proceedings. As a result, the Appeal was deemed infructuous and was dismissed. The Bench also disposed of a related Miscellaneous Application.

This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT KOLKATA covers the issues of early hearing of the Appeal, remand of the matter, admissibility of the refund claim, direction for expeditious decision-making, the infructuous nature of the Appeal, and the final dismissal of the Appeal.