2020 (3) TMI 747 - AT - Service Tax

CENVAT Credit - duty paying documents - it is submitted by him that in the FIRC documents, the Mumbai unit was erroneously mentioned instead of Chennai unit - HELD THAT - The address mentioned in the FIRC document is that of Mumbai unit instead of Chennai Unit, we find that the refund sanctioning authority for the refund claims for subsequent periods has verified necessary documents and allowed refund. The orders passed in this regard is produced - Taking into consideration this aspect, we hold that address of Mumbai unit mentioned in FIRC document is only an error by oversight and rejection of refund claim on this ground requires to be set aside which were hereby do. Denial of refund claim - allegation that the claim is time barred when computed from the date of submission of the refund after rectification of defects - HELD THAT - Needless to say that the period has to be computed from the date of original submission of the refund claim and not from the date when it is re-submitted after rectification. The appellant has filed the claims within one year from the date of FIRCs. Hence rejection of refund claim on this ground requires to be set aside. Non-submission of documents / FIRCs - Ld. consultant has requested for one more opportunity to submit the documents - HELD THAT - The ground for rejection are remanded to the adjudicating authority to reconsider on submission of documents. Another reason for rejection is that the amount has been realized by Forex cheque and not by direct remittances - HELD THAT - Since bank has credited the amount to their account, the service tax paid on such consideration paid cannot be denied - Appeals ST/42176-42179/2018 in which this issue is a ground for rejection are remanded to the adjudicating authority to reconsider the matter after verifying the invoices as to realization of cheque amount by the bank. Appeal allowed in part and part matter on remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund rejection based on incorrect recipient address in FIRC
2. Refund rejection as time-barred
3. Refund rejection due to non-submission of FIRCs
4. Refund rejection for payment realization through Forex cheque

Analysis:
1. The first issue pertains to the rejection of refund claims due to the recipient address being mentioned as Mumbai Unit instead of Chennai Unit in the FIRC. The appellant contended that services were indeed availed at the Chennai Unit, and the Mumbai address was an error by the bank. The appellant provided a certificate from the bank and a letter from the Service Tax Commissionerate, Mumbai, supporting their claim. The Tribunal found that the refund sanctioning authority had allowed refunds for subsequent periods after verifying necessary documents, indicating that the Mumbai address error was an oversight. Consequently, the rejection of the refund claim on this ground was set aside.

2. The second issue involved the rejection of refund claims as time-barred. The appellant had filed the refund claim within one year from the date of the FIRC. Although the claim was returned for rectification, the Commissioner (Appeals) miscalculated the time period, considering it from the resubmission date instead of the original filing date. The Tribunal clarified that the period should be computed from the original submission date, which was within the one-year limit. Therefore, the rejection on the basis of being time-barred was overturned.

3. The third issue concerned the rejection of refund claims due to non-submission of FIRCs. The appellant requested an opportunity to submit the required documents, and the Tribunal remanded the relevant appeals back to the adjudicating authority for reconsideration upon document submission.

4. The fourth issue revolved around the rejection of refund claims for payment realization through Forex cheques instead of direct remittances. The appellant argued that the cheques were credited to their overseas account and then remitted to India in foreign exchange. The Tribunal opined that since the bank had credited the amount to the appellant's account, the service tax paid on such consideration could not be denied. Appeals related to this issue were remanded for the adjudicating authority to verify the invoices regarding cheque realization.

In conclusion, the Tribunal modified the impugned orders, partially allowing the appeals and remanding specific issues for reconsideration. The refund sanctioning authority was directed to dispose of the matters within three months from the submission of documents by the appellants.