2023 (1) TMI 346 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - rejection of application filed by the appellant for rectification of mistake in the earlier order - rejection on the ground of time limitation and unjust enrichment - appellant had not produced any documentary proof to establish that it had not passed on the burden of tax to the customers in response to the show cause notice - HELD THAT - It is not possible to accept the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. It is not in dispute that the issues that arose in all the three appeals were identical. It is true that the Department had filed one appeal only before the Madhya Pradesh High Court in connection with the refund claim of Rs. 1,95,37,953/- in Service Tax Appeal No. 843 of 2012 and no appeal was filed in relation to the refund claim of Rs. 25,18,316/- and Rs. 24,32,609/- which were the subject matter of Service Tax Appeal No. 845 of 2012, and Service Tax Appeal No. 844 of 2012 presumably for the reason that the amount involved was below the monetary limit fixed by the Government for filing appeal. However, what needs to be noticed is that the Tribunal had passed a common order and it is this order which was in appeal before the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The findings of the Tribunal have been reversed and the order passed by the adjudicating authority has been upheld. It cannot, therefore, be urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Additional Commissioner committed an illegality in rejecting the refund applications filed for refund of Rs. 25,18,316/- and Rs. 24,32,609/-. It needs to be noted that the appellant had not filed any appeal to assail the order passed by the adjudicating authority and only applications for rectification of the alleged mistake in the orders were filed. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of refund claims by the Additional Commissioner.
2. Appeal against rejection of refund claims by the Commissioner (Appeals).
3. Rectification of mistake in the orders passed by the Additional Commissioner.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Rejection of Refund Claims by the Additional Commissioner
The appellant filed refund claims for gas supplied by different entities, which were rejected by the Additional Commissioner citing limitation and unjust enrichment. The Tribunal allowed the appeals, stating the applications were timely and unjust enrichment did not apply based on the appellant's accounts and supporting certificates. However, the Madhya Pradesh High Court reversed the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing the lack of proof that the tax burden was not passed to customers. The High Court set aside the Tribunal's order, stating the appellant failed to provide documentary evidence to support their claim.

Issue 2: Appeal Against Rejection of Refund Claims by the Commissioner (Appeals)
The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the Additional Commissioner's decision to reject the refund claims, stating no mistake was apparent from the record and rectification does not correct errors of judgment. The appellant contended that since the Department did not appeal the refund claims of lesser amounts, those decisions should be final. However, the Tribunal's common order was under appeal, and the findings were reversed by the High Court, leading to the rejection of the refund applications by the Commissioner (Appeals).

Issue 3: Rectification of Mistake in the Orders
The appellant sought rectification of the Additional Commissioner's orders, which was denied as no apparent mistake was found. The Commissioner (Appeals) affirmed this decision, stating rectification does not address alleged errors of judgment. The appellant argued that the rejection was erroneous due to the finality of the Tribunal's order on smaller refund claims. However, the rejection was upheld, emphasizing that the Tribunal's common order was under appeal, and the adjudicating authority's decision was in line with the High Court's judgment.

In conclusion, the appeals challenging the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order were rejected, as the issues raised were considered and found lacking merit. The rejection of refund claims, the subsequent appeals, and the rectification requests were all analyzed and decided based on legal principles and the specific circumstances of the case, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the appeals.