Finality of unappealed refund rejection bars fresh claim for the same period under service tax law.

A fresh refund claim for the same service tax period was barred where an earlier speaking order had already rejected the refund and was not challenged, because the unappealed determination had attained finality. The appellant's reliance on SEZ exemption and the characterisation of the amount as a deposit did not change the position, since the decisive question was whether the prior final order could be reopened through a new application. The CESTAT held that the same claim could not be re-agitated by a subsequent refund request for 01.03.2009 and 02.03.2009, and the rejection of the fresh claims was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant's fresh refund claims for service tax relating to 01.03.2009 and 02.03.2009 were maintainable when the earlier order rejecting refund for the same period had not been challenged and had attained finality.

Analysis: The refund for the disputed two days had already been rejected by a speaking order, and no appeal had been filed against that order. A fresh refund application for the same period could not be used to circumvent the earlier unchallenged determination. The plea based on exemption under the SEZ framework and the argument that the amount was a deposit outside the scope of limitation did not assist the appellant, because the core question was not the original eligibility to exemption but the effect of the prior final order. Once the earlier rejection had attained finality, the subsequent claim for the same period was not open for reconsideration.

Conclusion: The fresh refund claims were not maintainable and were correctly rejected; the decision was against the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund claim for the same period cannot be re-agitated by a fresh application when an earlier speaking order rejecting that claim has not been appealed against and has attained finality.

---