Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2024 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (4) TMI 299 - AT - Service TaxRefund of service tax paid on input services used for export of goods - rejection of refund claim observing that the exports have happened prior to 06.10.2007 (the date of notification) and therefore the appellant is not eligible for refund - period from 01.10.2007 to 02.04.2008 - N/N. 41/2007 dated 06.10.2007 - HELD THAT:- When the Department has not filed any appeal, it is indeed acceptance of the order of the Tribunal. The Department then cannot deviate such acceptance on the basis of merits or monetary grounds. The refund has to be sanctioned to the appellant. The ligation policy put forward in every Budget is to reduce the litigation and to lessen the burden of public exchequer on litigations. This being the intention of the litigation policy, the department has readjudicated the matter and again put further rounds of litigations. These situations should not be allowed to recur or continue. It appears that the adjudicating authority has not understood para-2 of the CBEC instructions dt. 12.12.2013 issued in regard to litigation policy. It does not mean that the decision of the Tribunal can be flouted or refused to be given effect to. When not appealed by either side, the order passed by Tribunal is final. The department cannot sit in appeal on an order passed by the Tribunal. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA VERSUS KAMLAKSHI FINANCE CORPORATION LTD. [1991 (9) TMI 72 - SUPREME COURT] held that The position now, therefore, is that, if any order passed by an Assistant Collector or Collector is adverse to the interests of the Revenue, the immediately higher administrative authority has the power to have the matter satisfactorily resolved by taking up the issue to the Appellate Collector or the Appellate Tribunal as the case may be. In the light of these amended provisions, there can be no justification for any Assistant Collector or Collector refusing to follow the order of the Appellate Collector or the Appellate Tribunal, as the case may be, even where he may have some reservations on its correctness. The Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. VERSUS HE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX COMMISSIONERATE COMMISSIONERATE-JAIPUR, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX COMMISSIONERATE CENTRAL EXCISE BUILDING, SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE-DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE-GOVERNMENT OF INDIA [2022 (3) TMI 330 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] held that when the entire order in original is set aside by Tribunal, the department cannot give limited effect to Tribunal’s order restricting it to one demand only. The impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed.
|