2010 (2) TMI 135 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of service tax paid on export services refund claim was rejected on the ground that refund claim was not supported by the relevant invoices matter remanded to the adjudicating authority for fresh orders of adjudication in the matter after giving the party a reasonable opportunity of adducing evidence and being heard.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection due to lack of supporting documents.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal seeking out-of-turn disposal due to the rejection of a refund claim by lower authorities based on the absence of supporting documents. The applicant's consultant argued that the necessary documents were indeed submitted, referencing specific letters submitted to the Commissioner (Appeals) and the original authority. One of the letters stated that all required documents had been produced and carried a dated seal of the Commissioner (Appeals). Another letter promised to provide print-outs of all invoices with a Compact disk. It was noted that the original authority did not have the opportunity to examine these records before rejecting the refund claim. Both authorities cited the lack of relevant invoices as the reason for the rejection. The refund claim pertained to service tax paid by the appellant for a service exported to clients abroad, seeking a refund for the disputed period. The consultant highlighted that similar refund claims for subsequent periods were approved by the Asstt. Commissioner, referring to specific Order-in-Original numbers.

Upon hearing both sides and recognizing the narrow scope of the issue, the Tribunal set aside the previous orders and allowed the appeal by remanding the case. The decision was made to re-adjudicate the matter after verifying the relevant records, with instructions for the original authority to issue fresh adjudication orders while providing the party with a fair opportunity to present evidence and arguments. Additionally, the early hearing application was also disposed of by the Tribunal, signifying the conclusion of the proceedings. The judgment was pronounced in court by Member (Technical) M.Veeraiyan and Member (Judicial) P.G.Chacko.