2021 (8) TMI 1223 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of Service Tax - input services invoices is not allowed as the appellants failed to co-relate payment made to vendors through bank statements - service of Information Technology Software Service not in the approved list of service - period from April, 2014 to June, 2015 - HELD THAT - From the case records it is apparent that the supporting documents were produced, although belatedly, by the appellants before the learned Commissioner but they were not considered by him at the time of passing the impugned order of rejecting the appeal on the ground of non-production of supporting documents. The verification of the documents which was produced by the Appellant before the learned Commissioner alongwith letter dated 13.06.2017 need to be looked into and verified by the lower authorities. The verification of them by the Commissioner (Appeals) may not be proper and these documents can very well be appreciated by the Original Authority. The matter should be remanded to the original authority for proper verification of these documents and also for de novo adjudication - Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim for service tax in SEZ, rejection based on non-filing of bank statements and unapproved service category.

Analysis:
The Appeal was filed against the rejection of a refund claim for Service Tax by the Appellants, a unit in SEZ engaged in manufacturing for aeroplanes. The claim amounted to ?3,65,502 for input services used in manufacturing activities from April 2014 to June 2015. The rejection was based on two grounds: first, failure to provide bank statements to co-relate payments made to vendors, and second, the service of Information Technology Software not being on the approved list, resulting in the rejection of ?63,505. The Appellants argued that they had made payments to vendors and fulfilled all conditions for the refund. They submitted that although they did not initially provide bank statements due to bulkiness, they later produced a correlation of payments with bank statements, which was acknowledged by the department but not considered by the Commissioner (Appeals).

The Appellants contended that the supporting documents were produced before the Commissioner but were not considered at the time of rejection. They requested a remand to the original authority for proper verification of the documents and de novo adjudication. The Tribunal agreed with the Appellants, setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision. The direction was given to consider all documents and provide a reasonable opportunity for the Appellants to present their case. The Appellants were instructed to produce all necessary supporting documents before the adjudicating authority for review.

In conclusion, the Appeal was allowed by way of remand, emphasizing the importance of proper verification of documents and a fair opportunity for the Appellants to support their claim. The order was pronounced in open court on 27.08.2021 by Mr. Ajay Sharma, Member (Judicial) of the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai.