2020 (5) TMI 2 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of CENVAT Credit - rejection for the reason that there is mismatch between the invoices, the service tax amount is not mentioned in the invoices etc. - HELD THAT - The learned counsel has submitted that the appellant did not appear for personal hearing and, therefore, they could not furnish necessary documents to establish their contentions. The appellant has to be given a further chance to establish their claim for refund. The appeals are remanded to the adjudicating authority who shall reconsider the issues arising in these appeals afresh - Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claims under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004; Rejection of refund claims by original authority; Upholding of rejection by Commissioner (Appeals); Need for further opportunity to establish refund claims.

Analysis:
The appellants had filed refund claims under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, which were partially allowed by the original authority but major portions were disallowed. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection of refund in various aspects such as PF return, filing charges, housekeeping charges, and diesel consumption charges. The appellant, represented by counsel N. Rabeen Jayaraman, argued that they were unable to substantiate their claim due to a lack of personal hearing and requested a remand to the adjudicating authority for reconsideration.

During the proceedings, it was noted that part of the refund claim was rejected as time-barred, which the appellant did not contest. However, for the contested issues, the appellant claimed that they were unable to provide necessary documents due to the lack of a personal hearing. Considering this, the Hon'ble Member (Judicial) decided to grant the appellant a further chance to establish their refund claim. The appeals were remanded to the adjudicating authority for a fresh consideration of the contested issues, setting aside the rejection of refund specifically contested in the appeals.

In conclusion, the judgment emphasized the importance of providing a fair opportunity for the appellant to present their case and establish their refund claims. The decision to remand the case for reconsideration was based on the appellant's plea for a chance to provide necessary documentation and address the issues raised in the rejection of the refund claims.