9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (6) TMI 134 - AT - Service TaxRefund of unutilized CENVAT credit - 100% EOU - denial of credit due to various reasons - it was contended by the appellant that proper observations were not made by the original authority - Held that - The impugned order set aside and cases remanded back to the original authority with the observation to pass a de novo order after considering the submissions put forth by the appellant - The original authority will also consider the e-BRCs which could not be produced before him earlier and which have been obtained subsequently by the appellant from the DGFT clearly showing the receipt of FIRCs - appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues Involved:
1. Compliance with Rule 4A of Service Tax Rules, 2004 2. Nexus between input services and output services 3. Service Tax registration number on invoices 4. Submission of invoices 5. Address and Service Tax amount on invoices 6. Timeliness of input invoices 7. Legibility of invoices 8. Eligibility of input invoices under Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004 9. Invoices addressed to claimant 10. Documentary evidence towards export of services 11. Administrative inconvenience and potential for fraud in refund claims 12. Calculation of export turnover and total turnover Detailed Analysis: Compliance with Rule 4A of Service Tax Rules, 2004 The adjudicating authority disallowed refunds on the grounds that invoices were not in line with Rule 4A of Service Tax Rules, 2004. The Tribunal noted that technical irregularities should not be a basis for denying substantive benefits provided under the law. Nexus between Input Services and Output Services Refunds were denied due to the alleged lack of nexus between input services and exported output services. The appellant argued that the input services were essential for their operations and cited various Tribunal decisions supporting their claim. The Tribunal remanded the case for reconsideration of the nexus based on the provided documents and precedents. Service Tax Registration Number on Invoices Refunds were rejected because the Service Tax registration number was not mentioned on invoices. The Tribunal referenced the Apotex Research case, which held that such procedural lapses should not lead to the denial of refunds. Submission of Invoices The appellant failed to submit some invoices, leading to the rejection of refund claims. The Tribunal emphasized that submission of input invoices is a basic requirement and remanded the case to allow the appellant to produce the missing invoices. Address and Service Tax Amount on Invoices The adjudicating authority denied refunds because the address and Service Tax amount were not mentioned on some invoices. The Tribunal referred to Rule 9(2) of the CCR, 2004, which allows for condonation of such omissions if other essential details are present. Timeliness of Input Invoices Refunds were rejected for invoices dated beyond 12 months. The Tribunal did not explicitly address this issue in the remand but implied that all relevant documents should be reconsidered. Legibility of Invoices Some invoices were deemed illegible, leading to the denial of refunds. The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue but included it in the general remand for reconsideration. Eligibility of Input Invoices under Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004 The adjudicating authority questioned the eligibility of certain input services under Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004. The Tribunal instructed the original authority to reconsider these services in light of the appellant's justifications and relevant case law. Invoices Addressed to Claimant Refunds were denied for invoices not addressed to the claimant. The Tribunal noted that Philips Healthcare, mentioned in some invoices, is a division of the appellant and should be considered accordingly. Documentary Evidence Towards Export of Services The appellant did not provide documentary evidence for export services amounting to ?53,53,71,126/-. The Tribunal remanded the case to allow the appellant to submit e-BRCs and other relevant documents. Administrative Inconvenience and Potential for Fraud in Refund Claims Refunds were denied on the grounds of administrative inconvenience and potential for fraud. The Tribunal emphasized that obtaining refunds is a legal right and such grounds are insufficient for denial. Calculation of Export Turnover and Total Turnover The appellant argued that the formula prescribed under Notification No. 27/2012 was wrongly applied. The Tribunal instructed the original authority to reconsider the calculation of export turnover and total turnover, ensuring consistency in the definitions used. Conclusion: The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case back to the original authority for a de novo order. The original authority was instructed to consider the appellant's submissions, relevant documents, and various decisions cited, ensuring that technical irregularities do not lead to the denial of refund claims. The appeals were disposed of by way of remand.
|
