2008 (7) TMI 234 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim was filed on the ground that service tax was paid on the amount billed for the services rendered rather than the amount actually received - appellant did not produce the original TR-6 challans which are must for sanctioning refund - appellants have failed to substantiate their claim for refund by producing relevant documents and evidences of double payment - claim has been rightly rejected on the ground that the appellants failed to substantiate their claim with relevant documents

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection based on lack of relevant documents and evidence.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the rejection of a refund claim of Rs. 10,972 based on the payment of service tax on billed amounts rather than received amounts from July'03 to Sept'03. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the claim as the appellants failed to provide necessary documents and evidence to support their claim. The appellants requested the appeal to be decided on merit, stating that the submissions made in the appeal memorandum should suffice. However, the Revenue argued that the appellants did not produce original TR-6 challans, essential for refund approval, and failed to submit details related to services rendered by the Ahmedabad branch. The department had to repeatedly request documents from the appellants, who ultimately could not prove the double payment by providing relevant records, such as cheque numbers with different dates for a single bill and payment details invoice-wise. The appellants only submitted a statement showing billed and received amounts month-wise, which the refund sanctioning authority found insufficient.

The Tribunal considered both sides' arguments and emphasized the necessity of producing invoice-wise details of billed amounts, receipt dates, and payment modes to substantiate the refund claim. The appellants' failure to provide these specific details, along with the absence of original TR-6 challans and incomplete submission of invoices, led to the rejection of their appeal. The Tribunal agreed with the Revenue's contention that the appellants did not sufficiently prove the double payment, thereby failing to meet the requirements for refund approval. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellants was rejected.