2022 (3) TMI 750 - AT - Service Tax

Appeal successful in restoring original refund amount, subsequent reduction overturned. Order upheld, reduction lacked legal basis.

The appeal was allowed, and the original refund amount of Rs. 22,81,472 was restored, overturning the subsequent reduction to Rs. 2,45,024. The Member ... Refund of service tax - extension of period of limitation - appealable order or not - section 74 of the Finance Act, 1994 - mistake apparent on the record or not - HELD THAT:- The order dated 15.10.2020 was passed by the adjudicating authority after verifying the records by the Range Officer who calculated the claim of refund filed by the appellant and recommended for sanction of ₹ 22,81,472/- for refund and the same has been sanctioned by the adjudicating authority. The said order is an appealable order is required to be challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals) under section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994(if aggrieved). As the adjudicating authority has passed the order on the basis of report filed by the Range Officer, therefore, it cannot be said that there is mistake on record. The adjudicating authority is directed to comply the order dated 15.10.2020 within 30 days of this order - appeal allowed. Issues:Appeal against rejection of refund claim, challenge to reduction of refund amount, mistake apparent on record, appealability of adjudicating authority's order, compliance with order dated 15.10.2020.Analysis:The appellant appealed against the rejection of a refund claim by the adjudicating authority, a decision upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). Following a previous Tribunal order, the appellant filed a refund claim, which was initially approved for Rs. 22,81,472 by the Range officer. Subsequently, the refund amount was reduced to Rs. 2,45,024 due to a discrepancy in the claimed time period. The appellant contended that the original order should be implemented as the subsequent reduction was not challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals). On the other hand, the respondent argued that there was a mistake on record, justifying the reduction, and the order could be amended after notice to the appellant.Upon review, the Member (Judicial) found that the original order dated 15.10.2020, based on the Range officer's recommendation, was appealable and should have been challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals) if aggrieved. As the order was not challenged on these grounds, it was deemed valid. The Member noted that the subsequent order reducing the refund amount was not supported by sufficient legal grounds and was therefore unsustainable. Consequently, the original order dated 15.10.2020 was restored, and the adjudicating authority was directed to comply with it within 30 days.In conclusion, the appeal was allowed, granting any consequential relief, if applicable. The decision was pronounced in an open court setting, emphasizing the restoration of the original refund amount and the necessity for compliance with the order dated 15.10.2020.