2013 (7) TMI 552 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of CENVAT credit assessee provided the services of Information Technology Software Services - there was no proof that two refund applications were submitted by the assessee with the Department Held that - The forwarding letter does not mention anything about the other two refund claims - there was no evidence of submission of the refund claim - lower authority had rightly rejected the claim for the quarter July 2009 to September 2009 as the credit of tax paid in March 2010 will not be available for refund and July 2009 to September 2009 decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund application for Cenvat Credit filed by M/s Rose I T Solution Pvt. Ltd.
2. Rejection of refund application by the Assistant Commissioner and Commissioner Central Excise (Appeal).
3. Discrepancy in filing refund applications for different quarters.
4. Eligibility for refund based on the timing of service tax payment.
5. Evidence of submission of refund claims for different periods.
6. Rejection of part claim for a specific amount.

Analysis:

1. The appeal was filed by M/s Rose I T Solution Pvt. Ltd against the rejection of their refund application for Cenvat Credit for the period from July 2009 to September 2009 under Notification No. 05/2006-CE. The Assistant Commissioner and the Commissioner Central Excise (Appeal) had both rejected the refund application.

2. The appellant contended that all three refund applications for different quarters were filed together on the same date, contradicting the Department's claim that two refund applications were not submitted. The Department argued that there was no proof of submission for two quarters, leading to the rejection of the appeal.

3. The main issue revolved around the timing of the service tax payment in relation to the period for which the refund was claimed. The service tax for the quarter July 2009 to September 2009 was paid in March 2010, leading to the rejection of the refund claim for that period.

4. The Tribunal found that while the refund claim for July 2009 to September 2009 was submitted with supporting evidence, there was no proof of submission for the other two quarters. The lack of documentation for the additional claims led to the rejection of those refund applications.

5. In terms of the specific amount claimed in the refund application, part of the claim was sanctioned, and the remaining amount was rejected by both lower authorities. The rejection was based on the fact that the tax payment for that amount was made after the period for which the refund was sought, making it ineligible for refund.

6. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the decision to reject the appeal, citing the lack of evidence for the submission of refund claims for two quarters and the ineligibility of the amount claimed for refund due to the timing of the tax payment. The Order in Appeal was upheld, and the appeal was rejected.