2017 (9) TMI 628 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of unutilised CENVAT credit - denial on the ground that the appellant has not submitted the Softex and the services are not exported by them - On 15/02/2010, a deficiencies memo was issued to the appellant to file all original documents and supporting documents, which when submitted were verified and were found on order - Held that - As the deficiencies has been raised to the appellant has been replied by the appellant and found in order, therefore, there is no question for the Adjudicating Authority to reject the refund claims without issuance of SCN - Moreover, when the refund claims sought to be entertained and relevant papers has been filed by the appellant which were found in order, therefore, authorities below are duty bound to entertain the refund claim which they failed to do so - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues involved:
- Rejection of refund claim by authorities
- Deficiencies memo issued for original documents
- Discrepancies pointed out in deficiencies memo
- Appellant's response to deficiencies memo
- Duty of Adjudicating Authority to entertain refund claims

Analysis:
The case involves an appeal against the rejection of a refund claim by the authorities. The appellant, an exporter of software, had filed refund claims under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for unutilized Cenvat credit. The authorities rejected the refund claim citing various grounds, including the absence of IT service export, unverified FIRCs, and missing Softex filing. The matter was escalated to the Commissioner (Appeals) twice, who upheld the rejection due to non-submission of Softex and lack of evidence of services exported. The appellant then appealed to the tribunal.

The tribunal noted that deficiencies were pointed out in a memo issued to the appellant, requesting original documents and supporting evidence. The appellant responded to the memo, attending the hearing and providing all necessary documents, which were found to be in order. The tribunal emphasized that when deficiencies were addressed and documents were verified, the Adjudicating Authority should have entertained the refund claim instead of rejecting it without a show cause notice. As the relevant papers were found in order, the authorities were obligated to consider the refund claim. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal with any consequential relief.

In conclusion, the judgment highlights the importance of addressing deficiencies in refund claims and the duty of authorities to entertain claims when all required documents are provided. The case underscores the procedural fairness required in handling refund claims under the Cenvat Credit Rules, emphasizing the need for thorough verification before rejecting a claim.