9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (10) TMI 934 - AT - Service TaxRefund of CENVAT Credit - failure to furnish to furnish any evidence that they have recredited to their cenvat credit account - applicability of time limitation - claim filed for the present period July 2016 to September 2016 after a time lapse of 2 years and is barred - period April 2014 to June 2014 - HELD THAT - In the subsequent refund claim, the appellant has maintained that the differential amount was recredited to the cenvat account vide general voucher No.611 dt. 30.09.2016. But it appears that the appellant has not supported its claim with any documentary evidence. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has therefore observed that the appellant had failed to furnish any evidence. The only way out is therefore for the appellant to establish its case before the adjudicating authority with duly supporting documents. The appellant should furnish the necessary supporting documents before the lower authorities who shall examine the same in the light of the appellant s claim for refund - the matter is remanded to the file of the adjudicating authority before whom the appellant shall furnish all necessary supporting documents for verification - Appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
Refund claim under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 for the period July 2016 to September 2016 - Rejection of refund claim amounting to &8377; 1,00,19,567/- - Appeal before Commissioner(Appeals) - Remand for re-verification - Subsequent sanction of refund amounting to &8377; 44,03,405/- - Rejection of &8377; 56,16,162/- - Appeal contesting refund of &8377; 11,17,246/- - Grounds for rejection based on credit amount not pertaining to the claim period - Lack of evidence for recrediting the amount - Admissibility of credit claimed after a time lapse - Necessity of supporting documents for refund verification. Analysis: The appellant filed a refund claim under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 for the period July 2016 to September 2016, seeking &8377; 1,22,88,612/-. A portion of the claim amounting to &8377; 1,00,19,567/- was rejected due to lack of nexus with the output service. Subsequently, after remand for re-verification, a refund of &8377; 44,03,405/- was sanctioned, while &8377; 56,16,162/- was rejected. The appellant contested the rejection of &8377; 11,17,246/-, claiming it as proportionate refund for CENVAT Credit of &8377; 30,95,815/-. The rejection was based on the ground that the credited amount did not pertain to the claim period, as it had been utilized in a previous quarter. The appellant failed to provide evidence of recrediting the amount, leading to doubts regarding the claim's validity. The Tribunal noted that the appellant's first refund claim for a previous period had been certified at a lower amount, which became final due to lack of appeal. In the subsequent claim, the appellant asserted recrediting the differential amount to the cenvat account but failed to substantiate this claim with supporting documents. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed this lack of evidence and emphasized the necessity for the appellant to establish their case with proper documentation. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for verification based on the appellant's furnished supporting documents. The lower authorities were directed to evaluate the documents and issue a speaking order in accordance with the law, allowing the appeal by way of remand.
|
