2019 (11) TMI 792 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of unutilized CENVAT credit - input services - renting of immovable property service - rejection also on the ground that certain invoices were not produced by the appellant before the authorities below - HELD THAT - Rejection of refund claim on the ground of non-mentioning of address of the premises in the registration certificate is not sustainable in view of the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of MPORTAL INDIA WIRELESS SOLUTIONS (P.) LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX 2011 (9) TMI 450 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT - Further, in the present case, availment of services and its utilization for providing output services has not been disputed and the service tax paid at the landlord s end for renting of immovable property service is also not disputed - the rejection of the refund on the ground of non-registration of the other floors within the same building is set aside. Rejection of refund in respect of certain activities on the ground of non-production of invoices - HELD THAT - The case remanded back to the original authority to quantify the refund on the basis of the documents which may be produced by the appellant and thereafter, decide the refund. The appeal is partially allowed and the matter is remanded back to the original authority for the purpose of verification of the refund claim on the basis of the documents which may be produced by the appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection on grounds of non-mentioning of address in registration certificate and non-production of invoices.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Refund rejection due to non-mentioning of address in registration certificate
The appeals were against the Order-in-Appeal partially allowing the refund claim subject to verification and rejecting the refund on the basis of renting of immovable property service and non-production of certain invoices. The appellant argued that the rejection was on technical grounds and that the premises for which the refund was claimed were all situated in one building, utilized for providing output services, and had suffered service tax at the landlord's end. The appellant cited legal precedents to support their argument. The Tribunal held that the rejection on the ground of non-mentioning of the address in the registration certificate was unsustainable, referring to the decision of the Karnataka High Court in a similar case. The Tribunal set aside the rejection of the refund on this ground, emphasizing that the availment and utilization of services for providing output services were not disputed.

Issue 2: Refund rejection due to non-production of invoices
Regarding the rejection of refund in respect of certain activities due to the non-production of invoices, the appellant admitted to having the invoices but failing to produce them before the authorities below. The Tribunal, after considering both parties' submissions, remanded the case back to the original authority to quantify the refund based on the documents that may be produced by the appellant. The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal and directed the original authority to verify the refund claim based on the documents provided by the appellant. The matter was remanded for further verification and decision on the refund amount based on the produced documents.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the rejection of the refund claim based on the non-mentioning of the address in the registration certificate and remanded the case for the verification and quantification of the refund based on the invoices that may be produced by the appellant.