2025 (2) TMI 630 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - rejection on the ground of time limitation - appellant had not submitted the necessary documents as directed within one year - HELD THAT - It is an admitted fact that appellant had submitted refund claim within due date initially and it was partially allowed by the Adjudication Authority on merit. Aggrieved by the said order appeal was filed before the Commissioner (Appeal) and after considering the appeal Commissioner (Appeals) had issued directions to produce the document and also remanded the matter to Adjudication Authority for verification of the document. There is no communication made by the Adjudication Authority on remand regarding de-novo adjudication. Appellant had submitted the document before issuing order in de-novo adjudication proceedings as evidence from the communication relied by the appellant. Fact being so considering it has a second refund application and rejecting the same as time barred is prima facie unsustainable. As regarding claims on merit the first appellate authority while considering the Refund claim against Appeal No. ST/20660/2022 has upheld the rejection of refund of Rs. 28, 116/- pertains to professional fees claimed under the category telecommunications services and Rs. 39, 337/- pertains to transport of passengers and Rs. 9, 838/- pertains to sound recording services. Since appellant has not filed any appeal challenging the said order said finding attained finality. Accordingly appellant is eligible for refund of balance amount only on production of the document. Conclusion - The rejection of the refund claim as a fresh claim after compliance with the appellate authority s directions to be unsustainable. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

The issues presented and considered in the judgment are as follows:1. The rejection of a refund claim by the Adjudication Authority.2. Whether the submission of additional documents after a remand constitutes a fresh refund claim.3. The application of the period of limitation to the refund claim.4. The compliance with the directions of the first appellate authority.5. The interpretation of Section 11(b)(ec) of the CE Act.Detailed analysis of the identified issues:Issue 1: Refund claim rejection- The Adjudication Authority initially partially allowed the refund claim but later rejected a portion of it.- The Commissioner (Appeals) partially allowed the appeal but directed the appellant to submit additional documents.- The Adjudication Authority rejected the claim as a fresh refund claim due to the appellant's delay in submitting the required documents.- The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection of the refund claim.- The appellant argued that the rejection was unjustified and relied on various legal precedents.Issue 2: Fresh refund claim after remand- The appellant complied with the directive to produce specific documents after a remand.- The Adjudication Authority treated the submission as a fresh refund claim, leading to rejection based on limitation.- The appellant contended that the compliance with the order should not be considered a new claim.- The Adjudication Authority's rejection was deemed unsustainable.Issue 3: Period of limitation- The Adjudication Authority rejected the claim on the grounds of being time-barred.- The appellant argued that the rejection was improper and cited legal decisions to support their position.- The Tribunal found the rejection on limitation grounds to be unsustainable.Issue 4: Compliance with appellate authority's directions- The appellant argued that if there was non-compliance, the Adjudication Authority should have taken action on its own.- The Adjudication Authority's rejection was criticized for disregarding the first appellate authority's order.Issue 5: Interpretation of Section 11(b)(ec) of the CE Act- The appellant argued that the refund claim did not fall under the scope of Section 11(b)(ec) of the CE Act.- The Tribunal did not find the claim to be hit by the mentioned section.Significant holdings:- The Tribunal found the rejection of the refund claim as a fresh claim after compliance with the appellate authority's directions to be unsustainable.- The Tribunal partially allowed one appeal and fully allowed another, granting relief to the appellant in accordance with the law.Overall, the judgment addressed the rejection of refund claims, the treatment of additional documents after a remand, the application of the period of limitation, compliance with appellate directives, and the interpretation of relevant legal provisions. The Tribunal ultimately provided relief to the appellant by allowing one appeal partially and the other fully.