Court overturns Tribunal decision on Notification No.12/2013 refund claim under Central Excise Act

Kolland Developers Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs (Appeals), Nagpur,

Kolland Developers Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs (Appeals), Nagpur, - 2022 (57) G. S. T. L. 379 (Bom.) Issues:
- Interpretation of Notification No.12/2013 for refund claim under Central Excise Act, 1944.
- Applicability of earlier Tribunal decision in Mahindra Engineering Services Ltd. case.
- Consideration of conditions for claiming benefit under Notification No.12/2013.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Interpretation of Notification No.12/2013
The case involved a Company seeking a refund of service tax under Notification No.12/2013 for services provided by a contractor. The appellant argued that there was no requirement of prior Approval Committee approval under Condition 3(1) of the notification. The respondent contended that all conditions had to be fulfilled for claiming the benefit of the exemption. The Court analyzed the provisions of the notification and held that the Tribunal's decision was not justified in disregarding its earlier order and should have considered the effect of Notification No.12/2013 in granting the refund claim.

Issue 2: Applicability of Earlier Tribunal Decision
The appellant relied on a previous Tribunal decision in Mahindra Engineering Services Ltd. case, where it was held that approval from the Approval Committee was not required before providing services under Notification No.09/2009. The appellant argued that the facts of this case were similar to the Mahindra case and the Tribunal should have followed its own decision. The Court agreed with the appellant, stating that the Tribunal should have either followed its earlier view or referred the matter to a larger bench for reconsideration.

Issue 3: Consideration of Conditions for Claiming Benefit
The Court noted that the Tribunal failed to consider the appellant's contention that the conditions of Notification No.09/2009 were similar to those in Notification No.12/2013. It emphasized that disregarding an earlier decision on the ground of a particular argument not being raised earlier was not sufficient. The Court held that the Tribunal should have either followed its earlier view or referred the matter to a larger bench for reconsideration, as per legal precedents.

In conclusion, the Court set aside the Tribunal's order, remanded the proceedings for fresh consideration, and directed the Tribunal to decide the appeal expeditiously. The appellant's appeal was allowed, with each party bearing its own costs.