2015 (7) TMI 465 - AT - Service Tax

Recovery of already granted refund - Original invoice not produced - Held that - Appellant contended that the department recovered back the amount of ₹ 4,00,670/- which was earlier granted to them. Ld.Counsel made submission that there was agreement between Honda Motor India Pvt.Ltd. and Honda Motor and Scooter India Pvt.Ltd. to provide IT related services i.e. sharing of server. They have issued invoices to Honda Motor and Scooter India Pvt.Ltd. She also pointed out that certificate was issued by chartered accountant of Honda Motor and Scooter India Pvt.Ltd. confirming that they have not received any service against the invoice issued by the appellant. - appellant have made out a prima facie case in their favour and balance of convenience is in favour of the appellant - recovery of already granted refund is liable to be stayed - Stay granted.

Summary

Issues: Refund claim denial based on missing original invoice and service tax payment discrepancy.

Refund Claim Denial:
The appellant's refund claim was initially allowed by the adjudicating authority but later rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) due to the absence of the original invoice and discrepancies in the payment of service tax under the service receiver rather than the service provider. The appellant argued that there was an agreement for IT services between two entities, supported by invoices and a certificate from a chartered accountant confirming non-receipt of services against the appellant's invoices. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions and facts, found merit in the appellant's case, granting a stay on the recovery of the refunded amount.

Stay Application and Early Disposal:
The Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's plea for an early disposal of the appeal, deeming the issue straightforward. Both the appellant's counsel and the Departmental Representative agreed to expedite the hearing, setting a date for the appeal hearing. The Tribunal granted the stay application, recognizing the balance of convenience in favor of the appellant and the prima facie case established by them.

This judgment highlights the importance of substantiating refund claims with necessary documentation, such as original invoices, and ensuring accurate payment of service tax under the correct category. It also underscores the Tribunal's discretion to grant stays on recovery pending appeal hearings and the significance of expediting proceedings for straightforward matters.