2014 (12) TMI 1001 - AT - Service Tax

Denial of refund claim - non-fulfillment of the procedural requirements - Held that - It is observed from Notification No. 9/2009-S.T. that refund of service tax under this notification is entirely on the basis of fulfilment of procedures and conditions. It has been observed by Commissioner (Appeals) in para 7 of the OIA dated 14-6-2012 that appellant was asked to submit certain documents within 3 days and till the decision taken by the first appellate authority such documents were not furnished. When such a casual approach is shown by the appellant then it is difficult to appreciate that substantial procedural requirements required under Notification Nos. 9/2009-S.T. and 17/2011-S.T. can be considered to have been complied. There is no justification in interfering with the order dated 14-6-2012 passed by the first appellate authority which is accordingly upheld - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Refund of services availed by the appellant under Notification No. 9/2009-S.T. as amended.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Refund Claim Denial
The appellant filed an appeal against the denial of a refund claim for services availed under Notification No. 9/2009-S.T. The appellant argued that the refund claim should not have been rejected due to non-compliance with procedural requirements. The appellant cited previous judgments to support their argument for a liberal approach in such cases. However, it was noted that the refund under the said notification is subject to fulfilling procedures and conditions. The Commissioner (Appeals) highlighted that the appellant failed to submit required documents within the specified timeframe, indicating a casual approach. The failure to comply with substantial procedural requirements under the notifications led to the rejection of the refund claim. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the first appellate authority, stating that there was no justification to interfere with the order. Consequently, the appeal by the appellant was rejected.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the denial of the refund claim due to the appellant's failure to comply with the procedural requirements outlined in the relevant notifications. The decision emphasized the importance of adhering to the prescribed procedures for claiming refunds under the specified notification.

---