2015 (1) TMI 550 - AT - Service Tax

Denial of refund claim - notification No.41/07-ST - Non production of original documents - Appellants had taken stand that since the invoices were required under Income-tax Act, they could not file the original invoices with the department - Held that - It is observed that the basic issue relating to non-production of records have also been raised in the Commissioner (Appeals) s order. It is considered essential that the production of relevant records to examine the claim for refund for proper prospective. Accordingly, it is considered necessary to remand the matters back to the original adjudicating authority to ascertain the correctness of the refund claim without considering limitation factor. However, Commissioner may also go into the limitation issue in de novo adjudication as pointed out by ld.Counsel as well as ld.DR. - bunch of all the 12 appeals are remanded back to the original adjudicating authority for finalization of the refund claims within three months from the date of receipt of this order so that long pending issue could be finalized - Matter remanded back.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of refund claims due to non-production of original invoices.
2. Denial of service tax refund on overseas commission.
3. Refund claim denial for non-production of certificate.
4. Issue of limitation in filing refund claims.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Rejection of Refund Claims
The appellants appealed against the rejection of their refund claims by the department for not producing original invoices. The counsel argued that the invoices were required under the Income-tax Act and could not be submitted to the department. However, they agreed to produce the invoices for verification by the Central Excise authorities. The Tribunal remanded the matters back to the original adjudicating authority to examine the refund claims without considering the limitation factor.

Issue 2: Denial of Service Tax Refund on Overseas Commission
The denial of service tax refund on overseas commission was based on the requirement of an agreement between the exporter and the commission recipient. The Commissioner pointed out discrepancies in the submitted agreement, leading to the rejection of the refund claim. The counsel contended that the contract was for continuous supplies and offered to produce ledgers for further verification. The Tribunal remanded the case back for reevaluation.

Issue 3: Refund Claim Denial for Non-Production of Certificate
A refund claim of a specific amount was denied due to the non-production of a certificate as required by a notification. The appellants expressed readiness to provide proof of proper service usage in exported goods. The Tribunal directed the original adjudicating authority to reexamine this issue along with others upon remand.

Issue 4: Issue of Limitation in Filing Refund Claims
The issue of limitation in filing refund claims was raised concerning the applicable notifications and relevant dates. The Commissioner held that the date of export was crucial for determining the limitation period. The counsel argued that the legal provisions should override the notification requirements. The Tribunal remanded the cases back to the original authority for proper examination, considering the instructions issued by the Board.

In conclusion, the Tribunal remanded all 12 appeals back to the original adjudicating authority for finalization of the refund claims within a specified timeframe, emphasizing the importance of producing relevant records and addressing all issues raised during the proceedings.