2023 (1) TMI 251 - AT - Service Tax

Rejection of refund claim - rejection only on the ground that the invoices were issued in the names of some other units and not addressed to the appellant a SEZ unit - HELD THAT - Although I have gone through the same evidence which has been annexed from page 43 to 53 alongwith the appeal but it cannot be verified at this stage. If those were placed on record before the authorities below than the said authorities were under obligation to give finding on the said plea/evidence, one way or the other, but they failed to do so. Since the major portion of the rejected claim is pertains to this head only therefore, without going into the merits of the appeal, I am inclined to remand the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority to decide the issue afresh confining to refund claimed in this Appeal and also to record a finding about admissibility or otherwise of the evidence placed on record herein. The Appellant is directed to produce all the evidences before the Adjudicating Authority in support of their claim and the said Authority is also directed to decide the issues after giving proper opportunity to the Appellant - Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
- Partial rejection of refund claim by Commissioner (Appeals)
- Rejection of refund claim due to invoices issued in the names of other units
- Failure of authorities to give findings on evidence produced by the appellant
- Remand of the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh decision

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the partial rejection of a refund claim by the Commissioner (Appeals) for an amount of Rs.3,75,181. The appellant, a SEZ Unit providing Business Auxillary Service for export, initially filed a refund claim of Rs. 22,15,175 for the period April to June 2017. The Adjudicating Authority sanctioned Rs.16,65,459 and rejected Rs.5,49,716. The appeal was filed against the rejection, and the impugned order partially allowed the appeal.

2. The rejection of the refund claim was mainly due to invoices being issued in the names of other units instead of the appellant SEZ unit. The appellant argued that the invoices pertained to the SEZ unit, supported by evidence from their internal booking system. However, the authorities did not provide any findings on this evidence, leading to erroneous conclusions. The Adjudicating Authority failed to address the evidence presented, resulting in the rejection of a significant portion of the claim.

3. The Member (Judicial) reviewed the case records and noted that the evidence submitted by the appellant was not properly considered by the authorities below. Given the importance of this issue in the rejected claim, the matter was remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority for a fresh decision. The Adjudicating Authority was instructed to examine the evidence presented by the appellant and provide a clear finding on its admissibility concerning the invoices issued in the names of other units.

4. The judgment allowed the appeal by way of remand, directing the appellant to present all evidence before the Adjudicating Authority for a thorough review. The Adjudicating Authority was tasked with reconsidering the issues and providing a fair opportunity to the appellant for presenting their case. The decision emphasized the need for a proper examination of the evidence and a clear determination on the admissibility of the invoices in question.