2026-VIL-72-CESTAT-CHD-ST

SERVICE TAX CESTAT Cases

Service Tax - Refund orders sanctioned, Show cause notices issued subsequently - Appellant filed refund claims under Rule 5 of the CCR read with Notification No. 27/2012, which were sanctioned by the Revenue. Subsequently, the Revenue issued show cause notices invoking the extended period of limitation, alleging that the services rendered by the appellant were in the nature of intermediary services and therefore, cannot be considered as 'export' - Whether the Revenue can question the CENVAT credit availed by the appellant without challenging the refund orders that were already sanctioned in favor of the appellant - HELD - Once the refund orders were sanctioned in favor of the appellant, the Revenue cannot be allowed to say in a collateral proceeding that the refund was erroneous. Relying on the judgments of the Madras High Court in Eveready Industries India Ltd. and the Supreme Court in ITC Ltd., the Tribunal observed that the Revenue cannot be permitted to take an inconsistent stand after sanctioning the refunds. The Revenue cannot question the CENVAT credit availed by the appellant without challenging the refund orders – Further, the Revenue has been aware of the nature of services rendered by the appellant and the fact of availment of CENVAT credit. No suppression, mis-statement, mis-representation, fraud, collusion etc. has been established by the Revenue with cogent evidence. In the absence of any such evidence, the Revenue has not made out a case for invoking the extended period of limitation - The impugned orders are set aside and the appeals are allowed

Quick Search

/

Create Account



Log In



Forgot Password


Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page



Feedback this page