2015 (11) TMI 787 - AT - Service Tax

Commissioning, Installation and Erection Services - benefit of abatement under Notification No. 18/2003-ST dated 21.08.2003, as amended by Notification No. 12/2004-ST dated 10.09.2004 - Held that - Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the refund claim on the ground that the appellant has not brought forward any documentary or other evidence, viz. contract, purchase order etc. to show that the gross amount charged by them to their customers for the erection, commissioning or installation service includes the value, paid by the customers. The Tribunal in the case of AlidharaTexspin Engineers (2010 (8) TMI 145 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD) has relied upon by the learned Advocate, allowed the appeal of the assessee. In the said case, the appellant produced the purchase order/ sales contracts of the buyers were inclusive of Erection, Installation and Commissioning of the textile machinery manufactured by them. In the present case, the appellant admittedly had not produced any document and therefore, the said case law would not apply to the facts of this case. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues: Refund claim rejection based on lack of documentary evidence for abatement under service tax category of "Commissioning, Installation and Erection Services."

Analysis:
The appellant filed an appeal against the rejection of a refund claim amounting to Rs. 4,07,675 related to service tax paid under the category of "Commissioning, Installation and Erection Services." The appellant claimed the benefit of abatement under Notification No. 18/2003-ST, amended by Notification No. 12/2004-ST. The appellant argued that they paid the tax under the specified category and were entitled to abatement without the need for additional documentation, citing a Tribunal decision in AlidharaTexspin Engineers vs. CCE, Vapi. The appellant emphasized that no document was required for claiming abatement.

The Revenue's Authorized Representative supported the Commissioner (Appeals)'s findings, stating that the appellant failed to provide documentary evidence such as contracts or agreements to support the abatement claim. Upon review, it was noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the refund claim due to the absence of documentation showing that the amount charged to customers included the relevant value. While the Tribunal decision in AlidharaTexspin Engineers favored the appellant in a similar case, where purchase orders and sales contracts demonstrated the inclusion of services, the current appellant did not produce any such supporting documents, making the previous case inapplicable.

After considering the arguments and examining the records, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant's appeal lacked merit. The rejection of the appeal was based on the failure to provide necessary documentary evidence to substantiate the abatement claim under the specified service tax category. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the decision to reject the appellant's appeal, emphasizing the importance of presenting relevant documentation to support refund claims in such cases.