2017 (9) TMI 950 - HC - Service Tax

Entitlement of the respondent to the refund - Held that - It is crystal clear that the observation made in paragraph 5.1 is only prima facie observation made by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The issue whether the respondent is entitled to refund in accordance with law is not at all concluded by the prima facie observation and issue of entitlement of the respondent to the refund has been expressly kept open to be decided by the Adjudicating Authority - we do not agree that the issue of entitlement of the respondent to claim refund does not remain open - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against the order of remand by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.
- Entitlement of the respondent to claim refund.
- Consideration of documents not before the Adjudicating Authority.

Analysis:
1. The appellant challenged the order of remand by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, which partially allowed the respondent's appeal and remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority. The appellant argued that the Tribunal's order was not a simple remand as it implied the respondent was entitled to a refund. Additionally, the appellant contended that the Tribunal erred in allowing the respondent to rely on documents not previously submitted to the Adjudicating Authority.

2. The High Court carefully examined the submissions and the contents of paragraph 5.1 of the Tribunal's order. The Court noted that the Tribunal's observation regarding the respondent's entitlement to a refund was merely prima facie and did not conclusively determine the issue. The Court emphasized that the question of the respondent's entitlement to a refund was explicitly left open for the Adjudicating Authority to decide. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the documents presented before the Tribunal would be considered in accordance with the law.

3. Ultimately, the High Court held that no substantial question of law arose from the appeal. The Court affirmed that the issue of the respondent's entitlement to a refund remained unresolved and would be decided by the Adjudicating Authority. The Court dismissed the appeal, stating that no legal question of significance was raised. The judgment emphasized that the matter of the respondent's refund claim was not conclusively settled and would be determined by the Adjudicating Authority in compliance with the law.