2011 (8) TMI 548 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - under Notification No. 17/2009-ST dated 07.07.2009 - appellant failed to submit supporting documents - Apparently when the refund claim was rejected appellants should have asked for the documents back and submitted all the papers supporting the refund claim along with the appeal memo before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in which case he could have decided the admissibility of refund also - A peculiar situation appears to have arisen because the Commissioner (Appeals) does not have the powers to remand and therefore, he has chosen to reject the appeal - Since on merits the Commissioner (Appeals) has already taken a view regarding eligibility of refund of service tax paid and on terminal handling charges also he has taken a favourable view, which are not under challenge by the Revenue, on merits appellants have already succeeded - Appeals are disposed of by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
- Whether the refund claim filed by the appellant under Notification No. 17/2009-ST dated 07.07.2009 was correctly rejected for lack of supporting documents.

Analysis:
The appellant filed three appeals concerning the rejection of their refund claims under Notification No. 17/2009-ST. The issue revolved around the rejection of the claims due to the appellant quoting the wrong notification number and including terminal handling charges, which were not covered under the relevant notification. The original adjudicating authority rejected the claims based on these grounds. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) disagreed with the rejection, stating that the refund for terminal handling charges was admissible and that the notification issue was not substantial. The Commissioner rejected the appeals as the appellant did not specify the services for which the refund was claimed and failed to provide necessary documents. The Commissioner's decision was based on the lack of supporting documents, as the refund claims were rejected without assessing their accuracy. The Commissioner could not remand the matter to the original authority due to legal constraints, leading to the rejection of the appeals. The Commissioner's stance on the eligibility of the refund and terminal handling charges was unchallenged by the Revenue. Considering the legal position and the merits of the case, the matter was remanded to the original adjudicating authority to reevaluate the admissibility of the refund based on the documents submitted by the appellant. The decision of the Commissioner on the refund's eligibility was deemed final and binding for the original authority, leading to the disposal of the appeals through remand.