2012 (6) TMI 244 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - SEZ unit - rejected on the ground that the appellant did not submit copies of invoices and proof of payment and further the refund claim was not filed within 6 months from the date of services received - Held that - Notification does not require the invoices to be submitted but the documents to show that Service Tax has been paid. The confirmation in original from the service provider giving the details of Service Tax received by them in the light of this requirement, can be said to be sufficient. In any case, it is found that copies of invoices and proof of payments are being submitted. Therefore, the rejection of claim on this ground is not correct. Condonation of delay - Held that - Taking note of the fact that the notification itself was issued in March 2009, a liberal approach for condonation of delay was required. Order is set aside and the matter is remanded to original adjudicating authority to consider the refund claim afresh.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of refund claim due to lack of submission of invoices and proof of payment within the specified time frame.
2. Contradictory observations by the original adjudicating authority regarding submission of documents.
3. Disagreement on the rejection of the claim based on delay in filing.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a SEZ unit, filed a refund claim for Service Tax paid on services but faced rejection for not submitting invoices and proof of payment within 6 months. The appellate authority upheld the rejection citing non-presentation of invoices. The appellant argued that confirmation from the service provider sufficed as evidence of payment, as required by the notification. The absence of a Show Cause Notice for rectification before rejection was also highlighted. The Tribunal found the rejection unjustified, noting the contradictory observations and the submission of necessary documents before the appellate authority.

2. The original adjudicating authority's contradictory remarks on the submission of payment details and proof raised concerns. While the authority acknowledged the payment confirmation, it also claimed non-submission of proof. The Tribunal clarified that the notification mandated proof of payment, not just invoices, and deemed the service provider's confirmation satisfactory. The appellant had also submitted invoices and proof of payment, unverified by the appellate authority, leading to the conclusion that the rejection based on this ground was erroneous.

3. Addressing the delay in filing the refund claim, the Tribunal emphasized the need for a liberal approach due to the notification's issuance shortly before the claim. Criticizing the Assistant Commissioner's rejection without allowing the appellant to justify the delay, the Tribunal deemed it necessary to condone the delay. Given the submission of invoices and proof of payment, the matter was remanded to the original adjudicating authority for a thorough review and sanction of the refund, with the delay condoned.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, remanding the matter for fresh consideration by the original adjudicating authority. The decision highlighted the importance of fulfilling notification requirements, addressing contradictory observations, and adopting a fair approach towards delays in refund claim filings.