2011 (5) TMI 469 - AT - Service Tax

Refund - Notification No. 41/2007-ST dated 6.10.2007 - The refund claims were rejected by the Assistant Commissioner under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act read with Section 83 of the Finance Act 1994 on the ground that the claims were not supported by necessary documents and on the further ground that no evidence was adduced against the bar of unjust enrichment - appellant has not disclosed the identity of the documents which are claimed to have been submitted to the lower authorities - Decided against the assessee

Summary

Issues:
Refund claims under Notification No. 41/2007-ST for service tax paid on services used for export of goods; Rejection of refund claims by Assistant Commissioner and Commissioner (Appeals) due to lack of necessary documents and evidence of unjust enrichment; Appeal against the rejection of refund claims.

Analysis:
The appeals were filed by the assessee against a common order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in response to four separate orders of the original authority. The refund claims were made under Notification No. 41/2007-ST, which exempted taxable services used for exporting goods from service tax, subject to specific conditions. The Notification required submission of documents proving export of goods, payment of service tax, and any relevant agreements. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the refund claims citing lack of necessary documents and evidence of unjust enrichment. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection, leading to the current appeals. The appellant argued they had submitted necessary documentary evidence, but failed to disclose the specific documents. The Notification mandated submission of export and service tax payment documents, which were not provided by the assessee. The appellant sought leniency, claiming the non-production of documents was a procedural lapse. However, the judge emphasized the substantive nature of the requirements under the Notification, stating that compliance was necessary. The absence of export and service tax payment documents, as well as evidence against unjust enrichment, led to the dismissal of the appeals.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the rejection of the refund claims, emphasizing the importance of complying with the conditions outlined in Notification No. 41/2007-ST. The failure to provide essential documents supporting the refund claims, such as proof of export and service tax payment, resulted in the dismissal of the appeals. The judge highlighted that the requirements specified in the Notification were substantive and not subject to leniency, underscoring the need for strict compliance with the conditions for claiming a refund of service tax.