2018 (12) TMI 1038 - AT - Service Tax

SEZ Unit - Refund of duty paid - N/N. 40/12-ST dated 20.06.2012 - Section 11A of the Central Excise Act 1944 - Held that - Inasmuch as the present impugned orders are by way of appeal proceedings against the denial of refund and inasmuch as in subsequent proceedings such refund has been held to be admissible to the appellants we find no merits in the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund of duty paid on input services under Notification No.40/12-ST dated 20.06.2012 denied due to non-compliance with Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. Proceedings initiated for recovery of granted refund under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT ALLAHABAD involved a common issue across multiple appeals concerning the denial of refund of duty paid on input services by a Unit located in SEZ engaged in exporting final products. The Original Adjudicating Authority initially allowed the refund claims, but the Commissioner (Appeals) reversed this decision, citing non-compliance with Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 regarding the invoices in question. This denial of refund was the subject of the appeals before the Tribunal.

Subsequently, the Revenue initiated proceedings for the recovery of the granted refund under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, based on the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) in the recovery proceedings set aside the original order, holding that the refunds were properly granted. This decision by the Commissioner (Appeals) was challenged by the Revenue before the Tribunal, which had previously rejected similar appeals in a related case.

Considering the background and the previous decision in favor of the assessee in similar proceedings, the Tribunal found that the issue had already been decided in favor of the appellants. Given that subsequent proceedings had upheld the admissibility of the refund, the Tribunal concluded that there were no merits in the Commissioner (Appeals)'s orders denying the refund claims. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and allowed all the appeals, providing consequential relief to the appellants.

In summary, the Tribunal's judgment overturned the denial of refund of duty paid on input services due to non-compliance with Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. The Tribunal's decision was based on the previous ruling in related proceedings where the refunds were deemed admissible, leading to the setting aside of the Commissioner (Appeals)'s orders and granting relief to the appellants in all the appeals.