2018 (2) TMI 1182 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - N/N. 27/2012-CE (NT) - denial on the premise that services for which they have availed Cenvat credit are not input services and appellant has filed 3 times revised returns showing different figures - Held that - The fact of revised return is on record. Nowhere in the Finance Act, 1994 it is stated that return is to be revised once, twice or thrice. If there is mistake, it is right of the appellant to revise the return and there is no such bar on the appellant to revise the return and appellant can revise the returns several times. The appellant has provided certificates issued by bank co-relating the exports made by the appellant and payments realised thereof. The adjudicating authority shall examine the certificates to verify that against the exports of goods the appellant has received the payment through the banking channels or not. The matter is remanded back to the adjudicating authority only for verification of the bank certificates produced by appellant - Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of refund claim under Notification No.27/2012-CE (NT) due to services not being considered input services.
2. Allegations of filing multiple revised returns with different figures.
3. Lack of bank reconciliation certificates affecting entitlement for refund claims.

Analysis:
1. The appellant contested the denial of the refund claim based on the premise that services availed, such as Real Estate Agent service, Outdoor Catering services, Air Travel services, Restaurant services, and Works Contract services, were not considered input services. The tribunal examined each service individually. It was established that these services had a direct nexus to providing output services, making the appellant eligible to avail Cenvat credit on them. Thus, on merit, the appellant was deemed entitled to claim a refund for these input services.

2. Another issue raised was the discrepancy in the number of times the appellant revised their ST-3 returns. While the appellant claimed to have revised the returns only once, the records showed three revisions. The tribunal clarified that there is no limitation in the Finance Act, 1994 on the number of times a return can be revised. Therefore, the ground of multiple revisions could not be used to reject the appellant's refund claims.

3. The appellant failed to produce bank reconciliation certificates in support of export services, leading to doubts regarding the entitlement for refund claims. However, the appellant later provided certificates issued by the bank related to exports and payments received. The tribunal directed the adjudicating authority to verify these certificates to ensure that payments for exports were received through banking channels. If doubts persist, the authority was instructed to directly request details from the bank. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the adjudicating authority for further verification of the bank certificates.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues addressed by the tribunal concerning the denial of refund claims, revised returns, and the necessity of bank reconciliation certificates in supporting refund entitlement.