2014 (4) TMI 1070 - AT - Service Tax

Denial of refund claim - notification No. 17/2009-S.T. dated 7-7-2009 - held that - appellate authority cannot introduce conditions in the Notifications from his side which amounts to the legislation activity of which does not fall under the ambit of appellate jurisdiction being exercised by the Commissioner (Appeals) If the legislation in its wisdom has thought it fit not to introduce the conditions of the previous notification in the subsequent Notification No. 17/2009-S.T. it is not open to the departmental authorities to adopt the conditions of the previous notification and apply the same to the present notification - Similarly in respect of the refund of the other 2 services I though Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that the proper documents satisfying the conditions were not submitted by the assessee but is the case of the appellant that such I documentary evidence was filed and is duly available with them - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Refund of service tax paid on various input services for export purposes under Notification No. 17/2009-S.T.
2. Rejection of refund claims by lower authorities.
3. Conditions for refund eligibility under different input services.
4. Introduction of conditions by appellate authority not in accordance with the law.
5. Requirement of proper documents for refund eligibility.
6. Factual verification of documents and satisfaction of conditions for refund.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The appellant, an exporter of readymade garments, applied for a refund of service tax paid on input services like GTA services, courier services, technical testing and analysis services, and CHA services under Notification No. 17/2009-S.T. The lower authorities rejected the refund claims.
2. The appellant's advocate conceded the ineligibility for refund of service tax on GTA and courier services. However, contested the denial for technical testing, analysis services, and CHA services based on the conditions specified in Notification No. 17/2009-S.T.
3. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the conditions for technical testing, analysis services were not explicitly mentioned in the notification, and relied on a previous notification. The same approach was taken for CHA services due to non-submission of documents.
4. The Tribunal found the Commissioner (Appeals) introducing conditions not specified in the current notification as not permissible. It was stated that the appellate authority cannot legislate conditions and apply them retroactively. The department cannot impose conditions from a previous notification on a subsequent one.
5. While the Commissioner (Appeals) noted insufficient documents for the other two services, the appellant claimed to have submitted the necessary documentary evidence. The issue of proper documentation and satisfaction of conditions arose.
6. The Tribunal set aside the lower authorities' orders and remanded the matter for factual verification of documents and compliance with the conditions of Notification No. 17/2009-S.T. The original adjudicating authority was tasked with reevaluating the matter based on verified documentation.
7. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed all three appeals by remanding the case for further review and compliance with the specified conditions for refund eligibility.