Service Tax refund rejection lacked a stated reason: CESTAT ordered re-adjudication

Vedanta Aluminium Ltd Vs Commissioner of CGST & Excise (CESTAT Kolkata)

In the case of Vedanta Aluminium Ltd Vs Commissioner of CGST & Excise, the appellant Vedanta Aluminium Ltd, located in an SEZ, appealed against a decision by the Commissioner (Appeals) rejecting their refund claim of service tax paid on certain services. CESTAT Kolkata found that the rejection lacked a stated reason, termed a ‘cryptic order’, and subsequently set aside the order directing re-adjudication.

Vedanta Aluminium Ltd, the appellant, had filed a refund claim for service tax paid on specific services. The adjudicating authority had sanctioned the refund claim for 13 out of 18 invoices but rejected the remaining five, deeming them either fake or improper.

On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the refund claim without providing explicit reasoning in his order. This cryptic order led to the appeal at CESTAT Kolkata. During the appeal, the appellant’s counsel highlighted the absence of clear findings in the Commissioner (Appeals)’s order that could justify the refund claim rejection.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.