2015 (5) TMI 666 - AT - Service Tax

Refund - Bar of limitation - Lack of documentary evidence - Held that - Original adjudicating authority as well as appellate authority have clearly noted that the appellants have not submitted the evidence of payment of service tax on the specified services for which the refunds were sought. - The appellants contention that they had done so is not borne out by facts in-as-much-as what they had submitted as (what they called) details of service tax paid on services received/used for export of goods were nothing more than mere tables containing list of payment cheque numbers and dates, bills/invoice numbers and , bill date, name of service provider, nature of service, pre-tax bill amount, service tax, TDS deducted, net bill export amount and date and Shipping Bill numbers. They did not even submit any of the invoices (incorporating service tax component) relating to the services received in support of the entries in the said tables. The appellants also submitted copies of the account statements issued by banks and as rightly noted by Commissioner (Appeals), those details could not be correlated/corroborated vis-a-vis the details in the said tables. Appellants have not been able to produce the minimum documentary evidence (as required in terms of the said notifications; e.g. para (f) of Notification No.41/2007-ST) to show that the service in respect of which the refunds were sought had actually been received by them and the same were duly service tax paid services covered under the list of (eligible) services contained in the said Notifications - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claims rejected for being submitted beyond time limit and lacking required documentary evidence.

Analysis:
The Appeals were filed against Order-in-Appeal upholding Orders-in-Original rejecting refund claims for specific quarters. The rejection was based on claims being submitted past the prescribed time limit and lacking necessary documentation as per relevant Notifications. The appellants argued they filed claims on time but were deemed incomplete by the Dy. Commissioner. They contended they provided evidence of service tax payment for the refunds claimed.

Upon review, it was acknowledged that the appellants filed the refund claim on time, albeit with rectifiable shortcomings. However, it was noted that the evidence of payment of service tax on specified services was missing. The authorities highlighted that the details submitted by the appellants were insufficient, consisting only of tables with payment details but lacking invoices incorporating the service tax component. Additionally, account statements provided could not be aligned with the information in the tables.

The appellants failed to produce the essential documentary evidence required by the notifications to demonstrate receipt of services for which refunds were sought and the payment of service tax on those services. The absence of conclusive evidence led to the dismissal of the appeals as the authorities found no fault in the decisions taken. Therefore, the lack of proper documentation regarding service tax payment resulted in the rejection of the refund claims.