2015 (11) TMI 1594 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - N/N. 17/2011 dated 1/3/2011 - Held that - appellant could not file reply and also not attended the hearing. However, appellant produced all the records before the Commissioner(Appeals). The Commissioner(Appeals) has refused to accept the said documents on the ground that these are the additional documents produced first time, therefore the same cannot be taken on record under Rule 5 - Since, Adjudicating authority had no occasion to go through the documents, it is in the interest of justice that the matter should be remanded back to the Original Adjudicating authority - appeal disposed off - matter remanded back.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Refund claim rejection based on additional documents submitted before the Commissioner(Appeals) under Rule 5 of the Central Excise(Appeals) Rules, 2001.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Refund Claim Rejection:
The appeal was against the rejection of a refund claim under Notification 17/2011. The Adjudicating authority rejected the claim without the appellant's reply or attendance at the hearing. The appellant submitted documents before the Commissioner(Appeals), who refused to accept them as additional documents under Rule 5 of the Central Excise(Appeals) Rules, 2001. The appellant, aggrieved by this decision, appealed to the Tribunal.

2. Tribunal's Findings:
Despite the appellant not appearing, the Ld. Examiner (A.R.) for the Revenue reiterated the impugned order's findings. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions and records, noted that the issue revolved around the refund claim. The appellant had initially filed the claim with documents but failed to provide a reply or attend the hearing. However, all records were produced before the Commissioner(Appeals), who rejected them as additional documents. The Tribunal disagreed with this decision, stating that the documents were not additional but related to the existing refund claim. The Tribunal believed the Commissioner should have considered these documents and remanded the matter to the Original Adjudicating authority for a fresh decision.

3. Remand Decision:
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and directed the Original Adjudicating authority to review all documents submitted by the appellant, allowing any additional documents if necessary. The authority was instructed to conduct a fresh hearing, ensuring the appellant's right to a personal hearing. The Tribunal emphasized that the new decision should be made within three months from the date of the remand order. Ultimately, the appeal was disposed of through remand to the original adjudicating authority for a fresh determination.

This comprehensive analysis of the legal judgment highlights the key issues, the Tribunal's findings, and the decision to remand the case for a fresh review, ensuring a fair opportunity for the appellant in the refund claim process.