2018 (7) TMI 1063 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of service tax paid - no documents produced to establish the claim - appellant contended that Lower Authorities did not give them opportunity to establish their case - Held that - The applications were without any documents to establish that the amount claimed by appellant for refund was actually credited to exchequer - Central Board of Excise and Customs has issued supplementary instructions under Chapter IX of supplementary instructions in Para 2.4 issued instruction in respect of Refund which says that The claim shall be taken as filed only when all relevant documents are available. The Original and Appellate Authority are bound by the said instructions which also includes that the refund claims received without supporting documents should be rejected - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund of service tax claimed by the appellant based on the construction of a residential complex for personal use, rejection of refund application by the Original Authority, appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), and subsequent appeal before the Tribunal.

Analysis:
The case involved two appeals that were consolidated due to the same issue. The appellants, manufacturers of goods falling under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, and registered under Service Tax, sought a refund of Service Tax amounting to ?3,26,898 and ?1,98,015, respectively, for services provided by M/s Dynacon Projects Private Limited in constructing a complex near their factory in Chhattisgarh. The appellants claimed that the construction was for personal use and therefore not subject to service tax. The refund applications were rejected by the Original Authority, leading to appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) and subsequently before the Tribunal.

The appellant's counsel argued that they were entitled to the refund under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994, as they had borne the service tax incidence. They contended that the service tax amount was credited to the exchequer by M/s Dynacon Projects Private Limited and should be refunded to them. However, it was revealed during the proceedings that the refund applications lacked essential documents to establish that the claimed amount was actually credited to the exchequer, as required by the Central Board of Excise and Customs guidelines under Chapter IX. The Tribunal noted that the applications were deficient in supporting documents, leading to the rejection of the refund claims by the Original and Appellate Authorities.

The Tribunal emphasized the importance of submitting necessary documents with refund claims to avoid delays in processing and to ensure the admissibility of the claim. Citing the supplementary instructions issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, the Tribunal held that refund claims without supporting documents should be rejected. As the appellant failed to provide the required documentation to establish the flow of duty incidence to the exchequer, the Tribunal upheld the decisions of the lower authorities and dismissed both appeals.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found no merit in the appellant's case due to the lack of essential documents supporting their refund claims. The judgment highlighted the significance of complying with documentation requirements for refund claims and upheld the rejection of the appeals based on the absence of necessary proof of duty incidence being credited to the exchequer.