9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (2) TMI 620 - AT - Central ExciseRefund claim on service tax paid denied - service tax paid under Section 66A(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 was not listed under Rule 3(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules and hence, no CENVAT Credit could be allowed on the said amount of service tax paid and accordingly, no refund was admissible - Held that - Payment of service tax under Section 66A(1) had been subsequently inserted as clause (ixa) in Rule 3(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 by amending the said Rule and giving retrospective effect to the said amendment from 18.04.2006. Hence, the refund of CENVAT Credit on the said input service is admissible under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules. Thus the claim for refund under CENVAT Credit Rules is admissible to the Appellant. For the refund amounts of Rs.430/- and Rs.2691/-, it is necessary that the xerox copies of the documents produced have to be examined by the adjudicating authority afresh, to ascertain its admissibility. Accordingly, the case is remanded to the adjudicating authority for the limited purpose of verification of documents on the eligibility of refund claims of Rs.430/- and Rs.2691/-.
Issues:
Refund claim under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 denied by lower authorities. Denial based on service tax paid under Section 66A(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 not listed under Rule 3(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules. Appellant filed appeal challenging denial of refund. Appellant claimed service tax paid under Section 66A(1) now specified under Rule 3(1) by amendment with retrospective effect. Dispute over admissibility of refund amounts of Rs.430/- and Rs.2691/- due to lack of supporting documents. Analysis: The Appellant, a 100% Export Oriented Unit engaged in manufacturing and export of Silk Fabric, filed a refund claim under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 for Rs.6,96,682/- for the quarter ending September, 2007. Two show cause notices were issued proposing denial of refund on various grounds. The Adjudicating Authority rejected a portion of the claim. The Appellant appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the denial on different grounds, including lack of supporting documents for certain amounts. The Appellant then approached the Tribunal challenging the denial of refund. The main contention was the denial of refund amounting to Rs.6,26,837/- due to service tax paid under Section 66A(1) not being listed under Rule 3(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules. The Appellant argued that an amendment to Rule 3(1) specified the service tax paid under Section 66A(1) as eligible for CENVAT Credit with retrospective effect from 18.04.2006. The Tribunal found in favor of the Appellant, stating that the refund of CENVAT Credit on the input service was admissible under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules. Regarding the other disputed amounts of Rs.430/- and Rs.2691/-, both parties agreed that the documents produced were copies and needed fresh examination by the adjudicating authority. The Tribunal remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for verification of the admissibility of these refund claims. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal for the refund of Rs.6,26,837/- under CENVAT Credit Rules, while directing further verification for the amounts of Rs.430/- and Rs.2691/-. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the admissibility of the refund claim under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules for the Appellant, citing the retrospective amendment to Rule 3(1) regarding service tax paid under Section 66A(1). The case was remanded for verification of supporting documents for the remaining disputed refund amounts.
|
