9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (11) TMI 129 - AT - Service TaxRejection of refund applications filed by the appellant vide Order-in-Original - HELD THAT - We find that the protective show-cause notice issued after the sanctioning of the refund by the adjudicating authority was adjudicated by the adjudicating authority vide Order-in-Original and the refund claims were rejected. Against this order, the appellant has filed an appeal before this Tribunal along with stay. Considering the above facts and the order of the Hon ble Supreme Court 2022 (1) TMI 1472 - SC ORDER we find that the appeals filed by the appellant are infructuous. Further, the appeals filed by the Department are not sustainable in view of the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court. Further, the appeal filed by the appellant against the Orders-in-Original needs to be allowed in view of the above decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court.
Issues:
1. Rejection of refund claims by the adjudicating authority. 2. Appeals filed by the appellant against the rejection orders. 3. Remand of the matter to the original adjudicating authority. 4. Review of refund orders by the Committee of Commissioners. 5. Appeals filed by the respondent against various orders. 6. Protective show-cause notices issued by the respondent. 7. Adjudication of protective show-cause notices. 8. Miscellaneous applications filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 9. Disposition of appeals based on the Supreme Court's decision. 10. Final decision on all appeals. Detailed Analysis: 1. The appellant, a private limited company, filed refund claims for specified amounts for the periods October 2008 to March 2009 and April 2009 to September 2009 under Notification No.5/2006-CE(NT) dated 14.03.2006. The respondent rejected the refund applications, leading to a series of appeals and orders. The Tribunal set aside the initial orders and remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority, emphasizing a limited examination of the refund claim related to FIRC only. 2. The adjudicating authority subsequently sanctioned the refund amount in full based on the Tribunal's order. However, the Committee of Commissioners reviewed these refund orders, leading to further appeals and remand to the original adjudicating authority. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the refund claims of the appellant, prompting appeals from the Respondent-Revenue before the Tribunal. 3. Protective show-cause notices were issued by the respondent for the recovery of the refund amount sanctioned earlier. The appellants informed the Department of the sub-judice status of the matter. The adjudicating authority later rejected the refund claims through Orders-in-Original, leading to appeals by the appellants before the Tribunal. 4. Various appeals were filed by both parties against different orders before the High Court and the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court issued orders clarifying that all proceedings should proceed on their own merits and be decided in accordance with the law. 5. The appellant filed appeals against the remand orders and subsequent rejection of refund claims. The Tribunal, considering the Supreme Court's decision, found certain appeals infructuous and dismissed them accordingly. The appeal filed by the appellant against the Orders-in-Original was allowed based on the Supreme Court's decision. 6. Ultimately, all appeals were disposed of, with some being dismissed as infructuous and others being allowed or dismissed based on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision. The final decision was pronounced in open court on 15.10.2024.
|
