2011 (1) TMI 463 - AT - Service Tax

Refund - Rule 2(1)(d)(iv) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 - Assistant Commissioner without going into the merits of the case rejected the refund application on the ground that alongwith the refund application, the appellant have not enclosed the original copy of the TR-6 challan but have attached only photocopy - Since according to the appellant, the original copy is now available with them, the appellant are directed to produce the same before the original Adjudicating Authority - Decided in favour of the assessee by way of remand

Summary

Issues:
Refund application rejection due to non-enclosure of original TR-6 challan.

Analysis:
The appellant, a manufacturer of auto parts exporting their products, utilized the services of a marketing agent abroad for procuring export orders. Service tax was paid on the commission under Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1944 read with Rule 2 (1) (d) (iv) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. An excess payment of service tax amounting to Rs. 1,46,888/- in October 2006 led to a refund application being filed with the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner on 22/10/07. The refund application was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner solely on the basis that the original TR-6 challan was not enclosed, only a photocopy was attached. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, prompting the appellant to file the present appeal.

During the hearing, the appellant's counsel explained that the original TR-6 challan was misplaced at the time of filing the refund claim, and only a photocopy was available. Subsequently, the original copy was located, and the authenticity of this document could be verified by the department. The Departmental Representative had no objection to remanding the case for reconsideration of the refund claim based on the original copy of the challan.

After considering the submissions from both parties and examining the records, the judge found that the only reason for rejecting the refund claim was the non-production of the original TR-6 challan. As the appellant now claimed to have located the original copy, they were directed to produce it before the original Adjudicating Authority. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for reconsideration of the refund application on its merits, subject to the verification of the original copy's authenticity by the department.