2018 (4) TMI 158 - AT - Service Tax

100% EOU - Refund of unutilized CENVAT credit - Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules - denial on the ground that the original invoices were not produced - Held that - the certificate of the Chartered Accountant was produced by the appellant and it is certified that the services covered by the invoices were used for providing export of services for the relevant period and a consolidated statement of invoices was filed which was certified by the Chartered Accountant also - there is no need of signature on the computer generated invoices - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against refund rejection based on non-production of original invoices and Chartered Accountant certificate.

Analysis:
The appeal was against the order setting aside the refund of ?5,51,370/- granted to the appellant. The appellant, engaged in Business Auxiliary Service and Business Support Service, availed CENVAT credit on input services for providing output services. A refund claim of ?7,54,854/- was filed, out of which ?5,51,370/- was sanctioned by the original authority. The Department appealed against this, citing non-production of original invoices and Chartered Accountant certificate. The Commissioner(Appeals) upheld the appeal, leading to the present appeal.

The appellant argued that the impugned order was legally unsustainable and contrary to the law. They contended that all required documents, including bank realization certificates and auditor certificates, were submitted. The appellant highlighted that as per notification, original invoices were not mandatory. They emphasized that the Chartered Accountant had certified the correctness of the refund claim and that a consolidated statement of invoices, duly certified, sufficed as per a Tribunal decision. They also referenced a Tribunal decision stating that computer-generated invoices did not require signatures.

On the other hand, the Department reiterated the findings of the impugned order. After hearing both sides and reviewing the records, it was observed that the refund rejection was on technical grounds. The Department did not dispute the nature of services or the service tax paid. The original authority had considered all documents and the Chartered Accountant's certificate before granting the refund. The Commissioner(Appeals) set aside the order based on non-production of documents and original invoices, despite the Chartered Accountant's certification and submission of a consolidated statement of invoices. It was noted that there was no requirement for signatures on computer-generated invoices. Consequently, the impugned order was deemed legally unsustainable, and the appeal of the appellant was allowed, setting aside the previous decision.