AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The appellant are in appeals against the impugned order wherein the refund claim of Rs. 9,61,121/- and interest on delayed refund have been
rejected by the authorities below.
The facts of the case are that the appellant is an exporter of goods i.e. rice. During the course of export of goods, they availed various services
namely Transport & Port services and paid service tax thereon. In terms of Notification No. 41/2007-ST dated 06.10.2007, the appellant filed seven
refund claims for the various periods during 2007 to 2010. The said refund claims were rejected on various grounds and the matter travelled up to this
Tribunal and this Tribunal vide Final Order No. 60822-60824/2019 dated 16.10.2019 had allowed the refund claim to the appellant alongwith
consequential relief. In consequent to the order of this Tribunal, the appellant filed a letter claiming that the refund Instead of sanctioning the refund to
the appellant, the Respondent issued two show cause notices dated 30.01.2020 and 23.04.2020 for entertaining the refund claim. Thereafter, the part
of the refund claim was sanctioned and a refund claim of Rs. 9,61,121/- was rejected. The appellant also claim interest on the delayed refund, the
same was also denied to the appellant. Against the order of rejection of the refund claim and denial of interest on delayed refund, the appellant is
before me.
The Ld. Consultant appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that in this case this Tribunal has already sanctioned the refund claim to the
appellant of the entire amount refund claimed by them by through various refund claims. Instead of complying the order of this Tribunal, the Revenue
issued two show cause notices to re-adjudicate the matter which is in gross violation legal provisions and amounts of contempt of this Tribunal,
therefore the impugned order rejecting part refund and denial of interest is to be set asideas instead of complying of the order of this Tribunal, the
department dared to issue show cause notice to the appellant which is not permissible in law.
He further submitted that the refund of Rs. 9,61,129/- was rejected on flimsy ground which has already been considered by this Tribunal vide its
order dated 16.10.2019, therefore, the impugned order is to be set-aside and the interest on delayed refund is to be sanctioned.
On the other hand, the Ld. AR opposed the appeals filed by the appellant who submits that only one order has been passed, therefore, the appellant
was not required to file five appeals. Therefore, four appeals filed by the appellant have become infructuous, therefore, the same are to be dismissed
as infructuous.
He further submits that there is no prayer by the appellant in prayer clause to grant interest on delayed refund, therefore, the interest is not payable
to them.
With regard to the merits of the case, he supported the impugned order and submits that the authorities below have rightly rejected the refund
claims of Rs. 9,61,121/-. Therefore, he prayed that the appeal is to be dismissed.
Heard the parties and considered the submissions.
On careful consideration of submission made by both sides, I find that initially the appellant had filed seven refund claims but were decided by a
common order, therefore the appellant has filed five appeals correctly and there is no force in the argument of the ld. AR Further, in grounds of the
appellant has claimed interest on delayed refund, therefore the objection regarding no prayer for have no force, hence turned down.
Further, I have gone through the order passed by this Tribunal in the earlier round of litigation on 16.10.2019 and has discussed each and every
aspect of the case and passed the order wherein the orders of rejection of refund claims were set-aside and the appeals were allowed with
consequential relief. After the order of this Tribunal dated 16.10.2019, the authorities below were having the two options i. e. either to challenge the
order of this Tribunal before higher forum or to comply the direction of this Tribunal passed on 16.10.2019. As the order dated 16.10.2019 has not
been challenged by the respondents, the only option left with the respondent to sanction the refund claim suo-motto and to release the same, no refund
claim was required to be filed by the appellant again. Instead of sanctioning the refund claim to the appellant, the adjudicating authority has issued two
show cause notices illegally to the appellant on 30.01.2020 and 23.04.2020. Therefore, the show cause notices issued to the appellant are illegal and
violation of the legal provisions. The act of the issuance of show cause notice to the appellant shows that arrogance of the departmental officers and
they has no faith in judiciary. The said act of the departmental officer cannot be appreciated. Further, these type of actions put burden on the Govt. Of
India monetarily and otherwise. Further, the department looses the faith of the society. Accordingly, the impugned proceedings are concluded against
the appellant qua rejection of refund claim of Rs, 9,61,121/- and denial of interest are set-aside.
In these terms, the refund claim of Rs. 9,61,121/- is allowed. As the appellant has filed refund claims during the period 2007 to 2010 and is entitled
for the said refund claims, the appellant is also entitled interest on delayed refund after 3 months from the date filing the refund claim till its realization
in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Ors. 2011 (273) ELT 3
(S.C.).
In view of above discussion, the appeals are allowed with consequential relief, if any.
The adjudicating authority is directed to comply the direction of this Tribunal vide order dated 16.10.2019 within 30 days of receipt of this order
and to comply this order also.
The copy of the order be sent to Chief Commissioner of CGST, Sector 17, Chandigarh and the Member, Legal CBIC, New Delhi for appropriate
directions.
(Dictated & pronounced in the Court)