2017 (7) TMI 292 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - N/N. 17/209 ST dated 07.07.2009 - rejection on the ground that the appellant filed the certificate required in consolidated manner instead of certifying each and every document enclosed with respective refund claim - Held that - when the requirement has been fulfilled substantially, it is not necessary that each and every document is to be certified individually - Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CC (Preventive) Amritsar v. Malwa Industries Ltd 2009 (2) TMI 41 - SUPREME COURT has observed that an assessee should not be deprived of entitled benefit by interpreting narrowly the conditions provided in law - the refund claim of ₹ 2,57,527/- is sanctioned for which further action shall be taken by the Original Adjudicating Authority. In case of the refund claim of ₹ 14,718/-, no finding has been given by the lower Authority in the impugned Order - the matter is remanded for fresh adjudication to the Original Adjudicating Authority. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Refusal of refund claim under Notification No.17/2009 - rejection based on consolidated certificate submission instead of individual certifications - interpretation of conditions for refund eligibility - relevance of individual certification requirement - applicability of case laws on strict interpretation of exemption notifications.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal by M/s K S Oils Ltd. against the rejection of their refund claim amounting to ?2,72,245 under Notification No.17/2009. The dispute arose as the Department rejected the refund claim, citing that the appellant submitted a consolidated certificate instead of certifying each document individually. The Tribunal, after hearing both parties, analyzed the situation. The Tribunal questioned the necessity of individual certification when a consolidated certificate fulfills all required contents as per the notification. Citing the principle that an assessee should not be deprived of entitled benefits due to narrow interpretation of conditions, the Tribunal referred to various legal precedents supporting a balanced approach in interpreting exemption notifications.

The Department argued for strict adherence to the notification's conditions, referencing a High Court decision. However, the Tribunal emphasized that substantial compliance with the notification's conditions should suffice for refund entitlement. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of not letting procedural technicalities hinder legitimate refund claims. Additionally, the Tribunal noted a specific refund claim amount of ?14,718 lacking a clear finding in the lower authority's order. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to remand this particular amount for fresh adjudication by the Original Adjudicating Authority to ensure a fair review based on all relevant documents and submissions.

Ultimately, the Tribunal sanctioned the refund claim of ?2,57,527, directing further action by the Original Adjudicating Authority. For the remaining amount of ?14,718, the Tribunal ordered a remand for a fresh adjudication process. The impugned order was modified accordingly, and the appeal was allowed in the mentioned terms. The judgment emphasized the importance of a balanced approach in interpreting legal provisions to ensure rightful entitlements are not unduly withheld due to technicalities.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the issues involved, the arguments presented by both parties, the legal principles applied, and the final decision rendered by the Tribunal.