2023 (9) TMI 416 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of unutilised CENVAT credit of the Service Tax paid on the input services - non-submission of original record/documents based on which credit was taken by the ISD - HELD THAT - The admissibility of credit is not in dispute, certain verifications had to be done before finalising the refund claims and the Commissioner (A) at para (20) of the impugned order has rightly directed the respondent to file necessary documents before the original authority for verification and sanction of the refund. There are no infirmity in this order and also there is no substance in the grounds of appeal or the submissions of the Revenue to dispute the facts discussed by the Commissioner (A) in the impugned order. The appeal is dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
Refund claims for unutilised CENVAT credit of Service Tax on input services for manufacture of export goods rejected due to non-submission of original documents by ISD.

Summary:

Issue 1: Eligibility of refund claim
The respondents, a 100% EOU, filed refund claims for unutilised CENVAT credit of Service Tax on input services for manufacturing export goods. The claims were rejected by the Original Authority. The Commissioner (A) noted that the lower authority did not dispute the eligibility of the refund claim. The only reason for rejection was the non-submission of original documents by the ISD. The Commissioner (A) held that the respondent is eligible for CENVAT credit based on ISD invoices and for the refund of unutilised CENVAT credit. However, the respondent was directed to submit verification certificates from service tax authorities regarding the correctness of credit apportionment by the ISD. The Revenue appealed, arguing that some services were not related to the manufacture of finished goods.

Issue 2: Verification of credit usage
No appearance was made for the respondent. The Revenue's Authorized Representative reiterated that some input services were not used in or related to the manufacture of export goods. After reviewing the records and submissions, the Tribunal found that the admissibility of credit was not in dispute. Verification was necessary before finalising the refund claims. The Commissioner (A) rightly directed the respondent to provide necessary documents for verification and refund sanction. The Tribunal found no issues with the Commissioner's order, dismissing the appeal as there was no substance in the Revenue's arguments disputing the facts discussed in the impugned order.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, affirming the Commissioner (A)'s decision regarding the eligibility of the refund claim and the necessity for verification before sanctioning the refund.