2010 (1) TMI 371 - AT - Service Tax

Refund- Notification 35/04-S.T. dated 3-12-04- The contention of the appellant that both the consignor and the consignee had paid Service Tax under Goods Transport Agency for same set of service has been rejected on the grounds that records have not been shown. The consignor is liable to pay Service Tax on GTA Services. Held that- findings in impugned order indicating verification of documents evidences and Chartered Accountant s certificate. Impugned order sustainable

Summary

Issues:
Refund of duty paid by the respondent, validity of the rejection of refund claim by the Adjudicating Authority, consideration of evidence by the Commissioner (Appeals), grounds of appeal by the Revenue, verification of documents to prove unjust enrichment and double payment, correctness of the Commissioner's order.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute over the refund of duty paid by the respondent. The Adjudicating Authority initially rejected the refund claim, leading to an appeal by the respondent. The Commissioner (Appeals) reviewed the case records and documents, including audited financial statements and certificates, and concluded that the respondent was eligible for the refund as they had made double payment for the same service, which was not unjust enrichment. The Commissioner's decision was based on the Notification 35/04-S.T. and relevant Service Tax Rules. The Revenue, dissatisfied with this decision, filed an appeal challenging the order.

The Revenue contended that the Adjudicating Authority had erred in rejecting the refund claim and failed to consider the evidence provided by the respondent. The Revenue emphasized that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not adequately verify the documents to establish the absence of unjust enrichment and double payment, as claimed by the respondent. However, the Revenue failed to present any evidence contradicting the Commissioner's findings that supported the respondent's eligibility for the refund.

After considering the arguments from both sides and examining the case records, the Member (J) found that the Commissioner's order was legally sound and devoid of any flaws. The Member (J) noted that the Revenue had not substantiated its claim that the Commissioner had not properly verified the documents submitted by the respondent. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, affirming the correctness of the Commissioner's decision. The Cross Objection filed by the respondent was also disposed of accordingly.

In conclusion, the judgment upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision to allow the refund claim of the respondent, emphasizing the importance of verifying evidence in such cases. The legal analysis focused on the interpretation of relevant laws and notifications governing Service Tax, as well as the significance of documentary evidence in establishing claims of unjust enrichment and double payment.