2023 (9) TMI 1256 - AT - Service Tax

Principles of natural justice - issues not considered properly - Refund claim - rejection on the ground that there is discrepancy in the name of the remitter in the FIRCS and due to difference of Cenvat credit' and difference in CENVAT Credit - HELD THAT - It is found that these two (2) issues namely, (I) Discrepancy in the name of the remitter on FIRCs; and (ii) Difference in the Cenvat credit, were not in issue before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) and the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has erroneously rejected the appeal mainly considering these two (2) issues only and did not give any finding remaining four (4) issues which were contested before him in this appeal filed by the appellant. The present case needs to be remanded back to the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the remaining four issues on which appeal was filed by the appellant before him - Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
The judgment involves a dispute regarding the rejection of a refund claim by the Commissioner (Appeals) based on discrepancies related to the remitter's name on FIRCs and differences in Cenvat credit.

Issue 1 - Discrepancy in the name of the remitter on FIRCs:
The appellant's refund claim was rejected due to discrepancies in the name of the remitter on FIRCs. The Ld. Joint Commissioner had already accepted this issue in favor of the appellant in the Order-in-Original, but the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) erroneously upheld the rejection without considering this acceptance. The Ld. Counsel argued that rejecting the claim on this ground, which was previously accepted, is unlawful.

Issue 2 - Difference in the Cenvat credit:
Another reason for the rejection of the refund claim was the difference in the Cenvat credit shown in the return and the amount claimed as a refund. Similar to the first issue, the Ld. Joint Commissioner had already acknowledged this discrepancy in favor of the appellant. The Ld. Counsel contended that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) failed to address this acceptance and rejected the claim without proper consideration.

Remand Decision:
After evaluating the submissions of both parties and examining the record, it was determined that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) had dismissed the appeal based on issues that were not in dispute. As a result, the case was remanded back to the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) with a directive to reevaluate the remaining four contested issues within two months from the date of receiving the order. This decision aimed to ensure a fair consideration of all relevant issues in the appeal process.