Order Date – 05 June 2024

Parties: M/s. Vedanta Aluminium Limited Vs Commissioner of (Appeals), Central Excise Customs & Service Tax

Facts –

• The Appellant, M/s. Vedanta Aluminium Limited, applied for refund of service tax in respect of input services received for authorized operations of SEZ unit from 03.03.2009 to 19.05.2009 as per Notification No. 9/2009-ST dated 03.03.2009.
• The Appellant was denied proportionate refund pertaining to 2 days viz. 01.03.2009 and 02.03.2009, prior to issuance of Notification No. 9/2009-ST, since such service providers had issued invoices for the entire month of March 2009. The appellant then filed a fresh refund application and the same was also rejected.

Issue –

• Whether the rejection of refund is proper?

Order –

• The Tribunal observed that issue involved in the present appeal is not eligibility of the refund claim. The refund claim for 01.03.2009 and 02.03.2009 has already been rejected by a speaking order dated 21.04.2010. Since the appellant has not filed appeal against the said order, it has attained finality. Thus, the fresh refund claim filed by the appellant is for the same period for which the claim has already been rejected and the rejection has attained finality.
• The appellant themselves claimed that they have paid the consideration after 03.03.2009 i.e., from 14.04.2009 to 10.06.2009 and 24.04.2010 to 25.06.2010. Thus, in their own admission, the invoices were not issued during the period when Notification 4/2004-ST was in operation. The finding of the adjudicating authority in the impugned order dated 21.04.2010 cannot be a reason for them to state that the services were rendered when Notification 4/2004-ST was in operation.
• If the findings of the adjudicating authority is wrong or not acceptable to them, the only recourse available to them was to file appeal against the order dated 21.04.2010, which they have not done. Now, they cannot take a stand contrary to their own submission that the considerations were paid after 03.03.2009. Hence, it was held that that the adjudicating authority has rightly rejected the fresh refund claim, which has already been rejected vide order dated 21.04.2010 and the rejection has attained finality.