2010 (12) TMI 496 - AT - Central Excise

Refund - Notification No. 5/2006-C.E., dated 14-3-2006 - Time limitation - the mention of TR-6 challan as the tax paying document instead of GAR-7 is so minor that credit paying documents cannot be treated as incomplete for this reason when the column for name and address for input service provider was left blank, the assessee himself was the service provider and only in the event of provision of service by another person, it becomes incumbent on the part of the assessee to show their name and address and registration particulars - Decided in the favour of the assessee by way of remand to the adjudicating authority

Summary

Issues:
Claim for refund of unutilised service credit under Notification No. 5/2006-C.E. - Rejection of claim as barred by limitation.

Analysis:
The case involved the assessees' claim for a refund of unutilised service credit under Notification No. 5/2006-C.E. for the period from Oct. '07 to Dec. '08, which was initially returned for rectification of defects. The claimant resubmitted the claim for the periods Apr. '08, Aug. '08, Oct. '08, and Dec. '08, but it was returned again for attestation of the shipping bill by the Customs officer and for indicating certain particulars in the CENVAT credit register extract. Despite subsequent resubmissions with additional documents, the claim was rejected as barred by limitation, with the period of limitation computed backward from 23-7-2009, leading to the appeal.

During the hearing, it was noted that an incomplete claim was indeed filed on 1-4-2009. The department had insisted on the original certified shipping bill, although the original shipping bill had been provided by the assessees. Regarding the CENVAT credit register extract, the defect highlighted was the mention of TR-6 challan instead of GAR-7 as the tax paying document, with missing details of the input service provider's name, address, and service tax registration number. The Tribunal acknowledged the minor nature of the TR-6 challan issue, stating that it should not render the credit paying documents incomplete. Additionally, it was clarified that when the name and address of the input service provider were left blank, it indicated that the assessee was the service provider, and details were only required if services were provided by another entity. Consequently, as the claim was considered to have been filed within the stipulated time, the impugned order was set aside. Since there was no examination of the claim's merits, the case was remitted to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision following due process and allowing the assessees a reasonable opportunity to present their defense.

In conclusion, the appeal was allowed by way of remand, emphasizing the importance of proper documentation and adherence to procedural requirements in claiming refunds of unutilised service credit under the relevant notification.