2021 (7) TMI 573 - AT - Service Tax

CESTAT Chennai: Refund Appeal Allowed, Service Tax Error Corrected

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai allowed the appeal and set aside the rejection of a refund by SIPCOT on developmental charges due to erroneously ... Refund of service tax - Service Tax was erroneously paid by SIPCOT on developmental charges - rejection on the ground of time limitation - HELD THAT:- The issue involved is no more res integra as the same issue has been dealt with by the Chennai Bench of the CESTAT in M/S. DYNAMIC TECHNO MEDICALS PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CGST & CENTRAL EXCISE [2021 (4) TMI 888 - CESTAT CHENNAI] where reliance placed in the case of Teknomec Vs. CGST & CE, Chennai [2019 (7) TMI 1416 - CESTAT CHENNAI], where this Tribunal held that when claim has been filed within reasonable time from the date when appellant received intimation from SIPCOT, the refund has to be granted. The Adjudicating Authority shall ascertain whether the date of refund application satisfies the time limit under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and if so, then the refund shall be issued with consequential benefits - appeal allowed by way of remand. Issues involved:Rejection of refund on the ground of erroneously paid Service Tax by SIPCOT on developmental charges.Analysis:The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai revolved around the sole issue of the rejection of a refund due to the erroneous payment of Service Tax by SIPCOT on developmental charges. The refund was initially rejected on the grounds of being time-barred after the issuance of a Show Cause Notice and subsequent adjudication. This rejection was upheld in the Order-in-Appeal No. 147/2019. However, upon a thorough examination of the case, the Tribunal found that the issue at hand had already been addressed by the Chennai Bench of the CESTAT in previous cases such as M/s. Roop Automotives Ltd., M/s. Dynamic Techno Medicals Pvt. Ltd., and M/s. Sakthi Industries.The Tribunal, in line with the precedents set by the aforementioned cases, set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal by way of remand. The Adjudicating Authority was directed to verify whether the date of the refund application adhered to the time limit specified under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. If the application met the time limit criteria, the Authority was instructed to issue the refund along with any consequential benefits as per the relevant laws. This decision was pronounced as the operative part of the order in open court, providing clarity and direction for the resolution of the issue at hand.