2021 (7) TMI 899 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of CENVAT credit - Certain FIRCs were addressed to unregistered premises - certain FIRCs were not produced can be considered as Export Turnover or not - invoices addressed to unregistered premises - non-compliance with the conditions 2(g) and 2(h) of N/N. 27/2012-CE(NT), dated 18.06.2012 - ceiling of the provisions of section 142(3) of CGST Act, 2017 - amount of refund claimed in ST-3 return, not debited - HELD THAT - The appellants have not been able to explain the required documents before the refund sanctioning authority. The learned counsel has submitted that they would be able to produce and also explain in regard to necessary documents if they are given further chance. The matter requires to be remanded to the refund sanctioning authority - Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claims under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 rejected on various grounds including unregistered premises, missing documents, lack of CENVAT balance, and non-debiting in ST-3 return.

Analysis:
The appellants filed three refund claims under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for different periods. The refund claims were rejected due to various reasons such as FIRCs addressed to unregistered premises, missing FIRCs, invoices addressed to unregistered premises, lack of CENVAT balance at the time of filing, non-compliance with conditions of Notification No.27/2012-CE(NT), and failure to debit the refund amount in the ST-3 return. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection, leading to the filing of appeals before the Tribunal.

The appellants argued that they waived the right to a show-cause notice and personal hearing assuming the adjudicating authority would carefully review the submitted documents. They emphasized that in a previous case, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed a similar refund regarding FIRCs addressed to unregistered premises. They also referenced a relevant decision and highlighted the post-GST debit process under clause 2(h) of the notification. The appellants requested a remand to present their case with proper submissions and documents.

The Authorised Representative supported the findings of the impugned order during the hearing. After considering the arguments and reviewing the records, the Tribunal observed that the appellants failed to adequately explain the necessary documents to the refund sanctioning authority. Acknowledging the appellants' willingness to provide further explanations and documents, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the refund sanctioning authority for a fresh assessment. The appeal was allowed for remand to enable the appellants to present their case effectively.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ordered a remand to the refund sanctioning authority for a de novo processing of the refund claims, providing the appellants with an opportunity to clarify and support their submissions with the required documentation.