2016 (12) TMI 1337 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - Rule 5 of CCR read with N/N. 5/2006-CE dated 14.3.2006 - the impugned order has been passed on the ground that the appellant failed to furnish the documents proving their claim of refund. Whereas on the other hand, the appellant has submitted that they have filed all the documents along with refund claim application but the same has not been considered by both the authorities and the refund has been rejected on flimsy grounds - Held that - the case needs to be remanded back to the original authority with a direction to consider the documents filed by the appellant in support of their claim as per the N/N. 5/2006 dated 14.3.2006 - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Refund of CENVAT credit under Rule 5 of CCR read with Notification No.5/2006-CE dated 14.3.2006 - Rejection of refund claim by Commissioner (A) for lack of nexus between input service received and output services exported and failure to establish veracity of documents - Appeal against impugned order - Consideration of documentary evidence - Remand to original authority for reevaluation.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Refund Claim Rejection
The appellant, engaged in exporting service classifiable under Information Technology Software service, availed CENVAT credit on service tax paid on input services but was unable to utilize the credit towards output liability. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the refund claim citing lack of nexus between input services and output services exported, failure to establish document veracity, and non-alignment of foreign exchange realized with export invoices. The Commissioner (A) upheld the rejection, emphasizing the absence of documentary evidence and failure to prove document correctness.

Issue 2: Appellant's Arguments
The appellant contended that the impugned order disregarded facts, law, and evidence, contravening judicial decisions. They argued that all conditions under the refund Notification were fulfilled, with supporting documents submitted. The appellant highlighted the self-certified statements correlating Foreign Inward Remittance Certificates (FIRCs) with export invoices, which were overlooked. Additional submissions explaining the nexus between input and output services were also provided but not considered by the appellate authority.

Issue 3: Judicial Review
Upon hearing both parties, the Tribunal found that the impugned order solely rejected the refund claim due to alleged lack of documentary proof, while the appellant asserted that all required documents were submitted but disregarded. Consequently, the Tribunal opined that the case warranted remand to the original authority for reevaluation. The adjudicating authority was directed to reconsider the documents supporting the refund claim within three months, affording the appellant an opportunity to present further evidence.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal by remanding the case to the original authority for a fresh examination of the refund claim, emphasizing the importance of considering all submitted documents in line with the relevant Notification. The decision underscored the necessity of proper evaluation and adherence to procedural requirements in refund matters, ensuring a fair opportunity for the appellant to substantiate their claim.