Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *   CBIC issues draft rules for Customs valuation *  Top Headlines: Threshold for Benami deals, green bond investors, and more *  Govt aims 1-hour clearance for goods at all ports *  Exporters Allowed To Use RoDTEP, RoSCTL Scrips To Pay Customs Duty, Transfer Them; Rules Amended *  Millions of labourers to be affected by brick producers’ strike over hike in GST, coal rates *  Inauguration of ‘kendriya GST parisar’ *  Transporter can seek Release of Conveyance alone, not Goods under GST Act: Madras HC *  GST: Quoting of DIN Mandatory for Responding to Notice, Govt Modifies Portal *  Firms can soon file claims for GST credits of ?400 cr *  CBIC issues modalities for filing transitional credit under GST. *  Mumbai: Man creates 36 fake GST firms, arrested for input tax credit fraud of Rs 23 cr *  Report to restructure Commerce Ministry under study; idea is to set up trade promotion body: Goyal *  Firms can soon file claims for GST credits of ?400 cr *  Gambling Alert! Govt May Levy Up To 28% GST; UP, Bengal Back Move *  EPFO backs raising retirement age to ease pressure on pension funds *  India Moving Up Power Scale, Set to Become Third Largest Economy By 2030 *  Airfares Get Expensive: What Changes for Flyers From Today? *  IRCTC Latest News: Passengers to Pay More For Cancelling Confirmed Rail Tickets Soon. *  IBC prevails over Customs Act, says Supreme Court. *  As GST enters sixth year, a time for evaluation and reassessment *  There’s GST on daily essentials as Centre needs money to buy MLAs: Arvind Kejriwal *  Now, GST on cancellation of confirmed train tickets, hotel bookings *  GST kitty for top States could rise 20% in FY23, says Crisil *  French customs officials seize another cargo vessel over Russia sanctions *  TradeLens builds on Asia momentum with Pakistan Customs deal *  Hike tax on tobacco, reduce affordability & increase revenue: Civil society organizations to GST council *  Bihar: ?10 crore tax evasion on tobacco products detected in raids *  Centre failed on GST, COVID; would it be anti-national? Rajan on Infosys row *  Service Tax not Chargeable on Income Tax TDS portion paid by recipient: CESTAT grants relief to TVS *  Foreign portfolio investors make net investment of Rs 7575cr in Sep so far
Subject News *  Run-up to Budget: Monetary threshold for GST offences may rise to Rs 25 cr *   GST (Tax) E-invoice Must For Businesses With Over Rs 5 Crore Annual Turnover *   Both Central GST and excise duty can be imposed on tobacco, rules Karnataka high court *   CBIC Issues Clarification On Extended Timelines For GST Compliance *   CBIC Issues Clarification On Extended Timelines For GST Compliance *  Budget 2023- 9.6 crore gas connections *  GST: Tamil Nadu Issues Instructions for Assessment and Adjudication Proceedings *  GST: CBIC Extends Last Date for filing of ITC *  GST collection in September surpasses Rs 1.4 lakh crore for straight seventh time *  Dollar smuggling case: Customs chargesheet names M Sivasankar as key conspirator. *  Hike in GST rates fuels inflation *  Assam: CBI arrests GST commissioner in Guwahati *  GST fraud worth ?824cr by 15 insurance Cos detected *  India proposes 15% customs duties on 22 items imported from UK *  Decriminalising certain offences under GST on cards *  Surge in GST collections more due to higher inflation: India Ratings *  MNRE Notifies BCD and Hike in GST Rates as ‘Change in Law’ Events But With a Condition | Mercom India *   Solar projects awarded before customs duty change allowed cost pass-through *  Rajasthan High Court Dismisses Writ Petitions Challenging Levy Of GST On Royalty *   GST revenue in September likely at Rs 1.45 lakh crore *  Govt working on decriminalising certain offences under GST, lower compounding charge *  Building an institution like GST Council takes time, trashing is easy: Sitharaman *  GST collections in Sept may touch ?1.5 lakh crore *  KTR asks Centre to withdraw GST on handlooms *  After Gameskraft, More Online Gaming Startups To Receive GST Tax Claims *  Madras HC: AAR Application Filed Under VAT Does Not Survive After GST Enactment *  Threshold for criminal offences under GST law may be raised *  Bengaluru: Gaming company faces biggest GST notice of Rs 21,000 crore *  CBIC clarifies Classification of Cranes for GST, Customs Duty *  Customs seize gold hidden in bicycle in Kerala airport  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/Case law/2013-14/1921

Separate appeal required to be filed for each order even if the orders appealed pertain to similar issue.

Case:-COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., DAMAN VERSUS ASIAN PLASTOWARES PVT. LTD.

Citation:-2013(31) S.T.R. 597 (Tri.- Ahmd.)

Issue:-Separate appeal required to be filed for each order even if the orders appealed pertain to similar issue.

Brief Facts:-The issue involved is eligibility of respondent for refund of Service Tax paid on GTA service availed and utilized for export of the goods un­der Notification No. 41/2007-S.T. The original adjudicating authority had passed two orders. In the first Order No. 8/NDMN/AC/9-10/R(ST), dated 24-7-2009, a refund of Rs. 24,085/- was sanctioned and in the second Order No. 9 /NDMN/AC/9-10R(ST), dated 24-7-2009, refund of Rs. 23,635/- was sanc­tioned. Revenue filed an appeal against sanction of refunds on the ground that the invoice issued by service provider did not contain registration number of the service provider. Further, the Assistant Commissioner, while sanctioning refund, had not verified whether the Service Tax has been paid or not. The Commission­er (Appeals), while considering the appeal, observed that the department had filed only one appeal against two orders passed by original adjudicating authori­ty and therefore decided to consider the appeal as having been filed against Or­der No. 8/NOMN/ AC/09-10/R(ST), dated 24-7-2009 only and rejected the ap­peal. Revenue is in appeal against the decision of Commissioner (Appeals) reject­ing the appeal.

Appellant Contentions:-The Department reiterated the grounds of appeal as contained in the appeal memorandum of appeal. The two refund sanction orders were passed by same Assistant Commissioner and issue involved was same and therefore one appeal was sufficient and therefore the order of Commissioner (Appeals) which considered the appeal as filed against one order is not proper. Secondly, the fact remains that the Assistant Commissioner has not recorded clear finding as to payment of Service Tax -by the clai­mant of the refund.

Respondent Contentions:- The respondents have submitted that the amount is only Rs. 27,085/- which is less than Rs. 50,000/- and therefore the appeal may be re­jected. Further, they have also restated that Commissioner (Appeals)'s order was in accordance with law and needs no interference. Respondents also took objec­tion to the proforma used for filing appeal.
 
Reasoning of Judgment:-We have considered the submissions made by both sides. As regards format of appeal, we find that this Tribunal had decided in the case of Krishna Export v. CCE, New Delhi -2011 (266) E.L.T. 374 (Tri.-Del.), that format meant for 'Excise appeal used in appeal involving Customs duty is a technical and rectifia­ble mistake and on this ground, the appeal cannot be dismissed and therefore the appeal cannot be rejected on the ground as claimed by the respondent. As re­gards correctness of one appeal having been filed in respect of two orders, Tribunal was not able to find any justification for this. Tribunal find agreed with ld. Commissioner (Appeals), who has reproduced Section 85 of Finance Act, 1994, which provides that any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed by the adjudicating authority subordinate to Commissioner of Central Excise, may appeal to the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). This would mean that in respect of each order, a separate appeal is required to be filed. In this case, it was found that two separate numbers have been given to both orders, and it is not even a common order covering two refund claims, but separate orders have been is­sued. Under these circumstances, Tribunal found no justification for filing a single appeal. As regards verification of payment of Service Tax, the Commissioner (Appeals) has considered this issue and has observed that the department has not been able to show how the finding of Assistant Commissioner that the appellant is eligible for refund of Service Tax is incorrect. Even now, it was found that there is no submis­sion/statement that the Service Tax has not been paid by the claimant of refund. If Revenue wanted to appeal on this ground, proper course was to verify written submissions wheth­er the Service Tax paid by the service provider and the re­ceiver and then file the appeal. The ground that there is no specific finding of the original adjudicating authority that he has verified the payment of Service Tax, cannot be accepted. Once the Assistant Commissioner while sanctioning refund, makes an observation that he has found that all the documents are in order and records a finding that refund is payable, the only conclusion would be that he has to verified whatever is required to be verified and any contrary claim is made, it is for the person who makes such contradictory claim to prove that the original adjudicating authority had failed in his duty. Therefore, it was found that there is no merit on this ground also. Further, as regards documents not containing details, obviously when the service recipient pays the tax, it is quite possible that the service provider may not be registered. Obviously, he cannot provide regis­tration number. Once it is clear that the Service Tax is paid by the recipient, he was eligible for refund and on technical ground without showing that payment was not made, refund cannot be rejected.
In view of the above discussion, no merits were found in the appeal filed by the Revenue and accordingly the same was rejected.

Decision:-Appeal is rejected.

Comment:-The essence of this case is that when separate orders for sanctioning the refund claim have been passed by the adjudicating authority, single appeal filed for two orders even if they pertain to same issue is not sustainable. Moreover, the ground that the adjudicating authority has not verified whether service tax has been paid of which the refund is being claimed is totally absurd as the original adjudicating authority is deemed to have exercise sufficient due diligence while processing the refund claims and if anything is objectionable to the revenue department, the same is required to be substantiated with proper evidences. 

Department News


Query

 
PRADEEP JAIN, F.C.A.

Head Office : -

Address :
"SUGYAN", H - 29, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR (RAJ.) - 342003

Phone No. :
0291 - 2439496, 0291 - 3258496

Mobile No. :
09314722236

Fax No. :0291 - 2439496


Branch Office : -

Address:
1008, 10th FLOOR, SUKH SAGAR COMPLEX,
NEAR FORTUNE LANDMARK HOTEL, USMANPURA,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380013

Phone No. :
079-32999496, 27560043

Mobile No. :
093777659496, 09377649496

E-mail :pradeep@capradeepjain.com