2016 (10) TMI 1384 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - confirmation of the adjudication order without appreciating the difficulties of the appellant - Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 - HELD THAT - It transpires from the adjudication order that appellant has been aggrieved due to rejection of its refund for non-submission of evidence in support of the claim of refund. Therefore without keeping the appeal pending to do justice to both sides the matter is remanded to the ld. Adjudicating authority to hear the appellant afresh on the evidence that may led by appellant during re-adjudication proceeding. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues: Appeal for remand of the matter due to non-submission of evidence for refund under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

Analysis:
- The appellant filed an appeal seeking a direction to the adjudicating authority to provide an opportunity of hearing for a preventable reason, as the authority rejected the refund claim for non-submission of evidence under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant argued that the evidence was not produced due to difficulties beyond their control and financial hardship faced due to global competition.
- The adjudicating authority confirmed the rejection without appreciating the appellant's difficulties. The appellant requested a remand to the authority for a fresh consideration of the claim.
- The appeal was decided on merits, and the Departmental Representative opposed remand, stating no point in entertaining the prayer. However, the Tribunal found that justice required remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority for a fresh hearing.
- The Tribunal ordered the authority to fix a hearing date within three months, where the appellant must present all evidence without seeking adjournment. The authority was directed to pass a reasoned order considering the evidence and defense presented.
- The appeal was disposed of for the limited purpose of remanding the matter for re-adjudication to allow the appellant to present evidence in support of the refund claim. The Miscellaneous Application also stood disposed of in view of the appeal's resolution.