2007 (4) TMI 195 - AT - Service Tax

Refund - service tax liability discharged without availing the benefit of Not. 32/04 - appellant discharged tax liability on total 100 % of the taxable value without taking the abatement of 75 % of the amount of value - refund can t be denied on the ground that the appellant had availed the credit of service tax of some other input services refund entitled provided that condition of impugned notification are satisfied matter remanded to original authority to reconsider the issue afresh

Summary

Issues:
Refund application rejection based on service tax liability discharge without availing Notification No. 32/2004 benefits.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the order-in-appeal that upheld the rejection of the refund application by the appellant. The issue revolved around the refund due to the appellant concerning the service tax liability they discharged without utilizing the benefits of Notification No. 32/2004, dated 3-12-2004. The appellant paid 100% of the taxable value without taking the abatement of 75% of the value as prescribed in the said Notification.

Upon reviewing the submissions and records, it was noted that the appellant had presented a certificate before the adjudicating authority, which was considered but not conclusively addressed. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) concluded that the certificate could not be relied upon for claiming the refund as the appellant failed to prove its correctness and genuineness. Additionally, the denial of the refund was also based on the appellant availing the credit of service tax on other input services during the relevant period. However, it was emphasized that availing credit on other services should not be a reason to reject the refund claim, as the appellant is entitled to a refund if they can demonstrate compliance with the conditions of Notification No. 32/2004.

As there were no definitive findings on these crucial issues, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the original adjudicating authority for a fresh consideration. The original adjudicating authority was directed to reevaluate the issue and reach a conclusion after providing an opportunity for the appellant to be heard. The appeal was allowed by remanding it to the original adjudicating authority for further review and decision-making.