2017 (8) TMI 1119 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - service tax paid erroneously under GTA services - rejection on the ground that the material evidence by way of documents such as lorry vouchers / consignment notes etc. in support of refund claim is not furnished - Held that - The appellant has to maintain the accounts properly and the documents supporting the transactions should also be proper. The process of refund sanction cannot be such in a manner of conduct of investigation by the department as in cases where demand of service tax is made. The documents supporting the refund claim as well as how the claim is made should be properly accounted and easily determinable - though appellant may have a legal claim the same is not sufficiently substantiated by evidence - though appellant contends to have made the payment of service tax under protest the appellant has no case that such amount was made on any demand or coercion made from the department - refund not allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of refund claim of service tax paid erroneously under Goods Transport Agency (GTA) services.
2. Determination of whether the appellant provided sufficient documentary evidence to substantiate the refund claim.
3. Analysis of whether the service tax paid was under protest and if it was eligible for a refund.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Rejection of Refund Claim of Service Tax Paid Erroneously under GTA Services:
The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of spiral welded MS pipes and registered under Business Auxiliary Service for coal tar coating on pipes supplied to IOCL. They paid service tax erroneously on the entire contract value, including transportation charges, for the period 10.9.2004 to 30.11.2004, despite Goods Transport Agency services not being taxable before 1.1.2005. The appellants filed a refund claim for the service tax paid on transportation, which was not a taxable service until 31.12.2004. The original authority rejected the refund claim due to insufficient documentary evidence, and the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to the current appeal.

2. Determination of Whether the Appellant Provided Sufficient Documentary Evidence to Substantiate the Refund Claim:
The appellants argued that they had provided sufficient documentation, including transport bills and consignment notes, to substantiate their refund claim. They explained the method used to calculate the transportation costs and provided worksheets and bills from Supreme Road Carriers. However, the adjudicating authority found discrepancies in the documentation and noted that the transportation costs were not separately shown in the invoices. The Range officer's verification report indicated that the appellant had paid the service tax on the total value of services from their Cenvat account under protest. Despite repeated requests for clarification, the appellant was unable to quantify the transportation charges accurately.

3. Analysis of Whether the Service Tax Paid Was Under Protest and If It Was Eligible for a Refund:
The appellant contended that the service tax was paid under protest, but there was no evidence of any demand or coercion from the department. Article 265 of the Constitution of India states that no tax shall be collected without the authority of law, and no tax collected under the authority of law should be refunded unless eligible. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant must provide clear and easily decipherable documentation to support the refund claim. The process of refund sanction should not require an investigation by the department. The Tribunal concluded that although the appellant may have a legal claim, it was not sufficiently substantiated by evidence.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the impugned order and dismissed the appeal, stating that the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the refund claim. The operative portion of the order was pronounced in open court.