2025 (11) TMI 122 - AT - Service Tax

Revenue ordered to refund Rs 15,13,432 with interest after finding adjudicator lacked jurisdiction and remand was flawed

CESTAT allowed the appeal, directing Revenue to refund Rs.15,13,432 with applicable interest from the date three months after the refund application. The ... Refund of accumulated cenvat credit - rejection of refund on the ground that the refund is hit by proviso to Rule 4(a) of Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012 - HELD THAT:- If the scrutiny of the documents was not done, then Commissioner (Appeals)’s order dated 30.05.2019 should have been appealed against by Revenue since it had set aside the original authority’s order and allowed the appeal. The said appeal before the said Commissioner (Appeals) was for grant of refund and he had allowed the appeal. However, Revenue has accepted the said order. After accepting that order, the Deputy Commissioner did not have any jurisdiction to reject any part of the refund. Further, learned Commissioner (Appeals) through impugned order, instead of correcting the mistake of Shri Rahul Kumar Yadava, has remanded the matter. The Department of Revenue has to seriously think about the process which is being adopted by Revenue for adjudication by its adjudicating authorities. When it is proposed to recover interest on amount of Rs.15,13,432/- from the salary of Shri Rahul Kumar Yadava, representative of Revenue has requested not to press for the same. It cannot be refrained from expressing my displeasure on the way the original authority, Shri Rahul Kumar Yadava, has instead of implementing Commissioner (Appeals)’s order and allowing refund, has exceeded his jurisdiction and rejected refund of Rs.15,13,432/-. The Revenue is directed to refund Rs.15,13,432/- with applicable rate of interest from the date of expiry of three moths from the day on which refund application was made - appeal allowed. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether, after acceptance by Revenue of an appellate order allowing a refund, the original adjudicating authority has jurisdiction to revisit and partially reject the refund claim on re-scrutiny. 2. Whether the appellate order accepted by Revenue must be implemented in toto and, if not implemented, what remedial direction is appropriate (including interest). 3. Whether remand by the Commissioner (Appeals) to the original authority was appropriate where the original authority, after acceptance of the appellate order by Revenue, declined to grant the refund in part. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Jurisdiction of original adjudicating authority after Revenue acceptance of an appellate order allowing refund Legal framework: The Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012 govern eligibility and refund of accumulated cenvat credit; administrative practice requires implementation of appellate orders once accepted by Revenue. Ordinary principles of administrative law and finality of orders apply to departmental acceptance of appellate directions. Precedent Treatment: No specific judicial precedents were cited or applied in the decision; the Court's reasoning proceeds from principles of jurisdiction and finality rather than reliance on prior case law. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal finds that once Revenue accepted the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order allowing the refund, the departmental acceptance created an obligation to implement that order. The Deputy Commissioner, who subsequently reconsidered the matter and rejected part of the refund, thereby exceeded jurisdiction because the administrative acceptance rendered the appellate conclusion operative. The Tribunal treats the original authority's subsequent partial rejection as inconsistent with the acceptance and as an overreach. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - An original adjudicating authority has no jurisdiction to partially reject a refund that has been allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and accepted by Revenue; acceptance requires implementation in toto. Obiter - Observations criticizing departmental processes and disciplinary consequences for the officer involved are advisory and not essential to the legal holding. Conclusions: The original authority lacked jurisdiction to reject Rs. 15,13,432/- after Revenue acceptance of the appellate order; that portion of the refund must be granted. Issue 2: Obligation to implement appellate order in toto and entitlement to interest on delayed refund Legal framework: Principles governing refunds under the Cenvat Credit Rules and administrative remedies; statutory/ancillary entitlement to interest where refunds are delayed beyond specified statutory periods (the Tribunal directs interest from expiry of three months from refund application date as per the practice invoked). Precedent Treatment: No prior decisions were invoked; the Tribunal applies standard remedial norms of refund and interest for delayed tax refunds. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal reasons that acceptance by Revenue of an appellate order creates a duty to implement that order fully. Failure to implement the accepted order amounts to wrongful withholding of refund. To make the aggrieved party whole, the withheld amount is to be refunded with interest at the applicable rate from the date specified (expiry of three months from filing of refund application), reflecting the period after which statutory interest normally becomes payable. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Where an accepted appellate order is not implemented, the taxpayer is entitled to the withheld refund along with interest from the statutory/recognized start date for interest. Obiter - The specific proposal to recover interest from the salary of the officer who erred is a disciplinary suggestion and not part of the operative remedy. Conclusions: Directs immediate refund of the withheld amount (Rs.15,13,432/-) with applicable interest computed from the date the statutory interest period commenced; implementation must be forthwith. Issue 3: Appropriateness of remand by Commissioner (Appeals) in circumstances where original authority exceeded jurisdiction after Revenue acceptance Legal framework: Appellate jurisdiction permits remand where factual or evidentiary reassessment is necessary; however, remand is inappropriate where the appellate decision has been accepted by Revenue and the remaining act is ministerial implementation. Precedent Treatment: No specific precedents considered; analysis is grounded on logical application of administrative finality and the limited function of remand. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal finds that remanding the matter back to the original authority (which had already refused part of the refund despite Revenue's acceptance of the appellate order) effectively enabled a fresh adjudicatory act inconsistent with the finality created by acceptance. Remand in such circumstances does not serve the purpose of resolving unresolved factual disputes but perpetuates the jurisdictional error. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Remand is inappropriate where Revenue has accepted an appellate order and the only required step is implementation; remand that permits re-litigation of an accepted appellate outcome is impermissible. Obiter - Comments addressing systemic departmental process failures are cautionary and not part of the mandatory relief. Conclusions: The Commissioner (Appeals)'s remand was improper in these facts; the correct course was to direct implementation of the accepted appellate order and grant the withheld refund with interest. Remedies and Directions (Operative Conclusion) 1. The Tribunal allows the appeal and directs Revenue to refund the withheld amount with applicable interest from the date of expiry of three months from the day on which the refund application was made. 2. The Tribunal records disapproval of the original authority's action in rejecting a portion of the refund after departmental acceptance of the appellate order and indicates that departmental procedures for adjudication require review to prevent repetition; suggestions regarding recovery of interest from the officer are expressed as displeasure and are not part of the legal remedy ordered by the Tribunal.