2015 (6) TMI 828 - AT - Service Tax

Denial of refund claim - original documents of refund claim not submitted - concerned authority never have them opportunity to produce sample documents - Held that - refund claim should not be rejected in the manner it has been done in this case - Matter remanded back with the directions that appellant to produce original documents for a period any two months for the period in dispute. - Authorities to process refund subject to direction given to assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. SN/127/NGP/2008 dated 28.11.2008.
2. Refund claim filed by M/s Western Coalfields Ltd. for various Service Tax payments.
3. Discrepancies in original document submission for refund claim.
4. Service Tax paid on Goods Transport Agency services before 1.1.2005.
5. Service Tax paid on coal transport through wagon loading.
6. Excess payment of Service Tax due to clerical error.
7. Rejection of refund claim by Order-in-Original dated 5.6.2008.
8. Appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) and subsequent rejection.
9. Request for remand of the matter for reconsideration.
10. Directions given by the Tribunal for reevaluation of the refund claim.

Analysis:
The appellant, M/s Western Coalfields Ltd., filed a refund claim for various Service Tax payments, including amounts paid on Goods Transport Agency services before 1.1.2005, coal transport through wagon loading, and excess payment due to clerical error. The Revenue raised concerns about discrepancies in the submission of original documents supporting the refund claim. The appellant argued that the Service Tax paid on services provided before 1.1.2005 should be refunded as they did not fall under the Goods Transport Agency category. Detailed statements and documents were submitted to support each category of refund claimed.

The Order-in-Original dated 5.6.2008 rejected the refund claim citing lack of original document submission and mismatch in the documents provided. The appellant appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals), who upheld the rejection due to non-submission of original documents. The Tribunal, after considering both sides, remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority with specific directions. These directions included producing original documents for a sample period, providing a Chartered Accountant certificate supporting the refund claim, and verifying excess payment on a sample basis. The Tribunal set a timeline of four months for completion of these procedures and directed the appellant to appear before the adjudicating authority with a copy of the order for an opportunity of hearing.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by way of remand, emphasizing the importance of proper verification and documentation in processing the refund claim. The judgment focused on addressing the discrepancies in document submission and ensuring a thorough reevaluation of the refund claim within a specified timeframe.