2015 (6) TMI 1170 - AT - Service Tax

Rebate claim - rejection on the ground that in the FIRCs, name of the company was mentioned as Affiliated Computer Services of whereas the name of the exporter was Affiliated Computer Services of India Pvt. Ltd. - Held that - Apparently the lower authorities felt that there could be another unit by name Affiliated Computer Services and another company by name Affiliated Computer Services of India Pvt. Ltd . - During the hearing, my attention was also drawn to the certificate wherein the name of the company is shown as Affiliated Computer Services of . Obviously this has happened because the number of characters provided for the first line ended at this level. In view of the fact that the appellants have produced the certificates from the bank and Chartered Accountant and further rebate claims, in any case, to be sanctioned by the original authority - the matter can be remanded to the original authority to verify the documents and sanction the rebate claims - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Rejection of rebate claims based on discrepancies in FIRCs naming, need for certificate verification, remand to original authority for verification and sanctioning of rebate claims.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the rejection of rebate claims by the appellant, which is challenged in four appeals. The main issue is the discrepancy in the naming convention in the FIRCs, where the company name was mentioned differently from the exporter's name. The lower authorities suspected the existence of another unit or company due to this variation. However, the appellants provided a certificate from the bank and a Chartered Accountant certificate confirming that the FIRCs were related to the appellant unit in Cochin only. The certificates clarified that the exports were made by the Cochin unit, and the bank account was linked to the company. The Technical Member noted that the discrepancy in naming occurred due to character limitations on the documents. As a result, the judgment directs the matter to be remanded to the original adjudicating authority for document verification and sanctioning of the rebate claims. The impugned order is set aside for this purpose, with a directive to provide the appellants a reasonable opportunity to present their case if there is a proposal to reject or partially reject the rebate claims.

This judgment highlights the importance of accurate documentation and naming conventions in rebate claims. It emphasizes the need for verification through certificates from relevant authorities to establish the connection between the exporter, company, and the specific unit involved in the transactions. The decision to remand the matter to the original authority underscores the significance of thorough verification before rejecting rebate claims. The judgment ensures procedural fairness by allowing the appellants an opportunity to present their case in case of any proposed rejection of the claims. Overall, it clarifies the process for handling discrepancies in documentation related to rebate claims and emphasizes the role of verification in ensuring the legitimacy of such claims.