2023 (3) TMI 64 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claims - Seeking modification in the refund claims filed by the appellant without initiating any proceedings by way of issuance of show cause notice under Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - HELD THAT - In the case of appellant itself, the issue has been settled by the orders reported at 2018 (8) TMI 19 - CESTAT MUMBAI , where it was held that under the substituted Rule 5 of the rules, there is no requirement of showing the nexus between the input service and the output service provided by the assessee. Since the refund under the said amended rule is governed on the basis of receipt of export turnover to the total turnover, the establishing the nexus between the input and output service cannot be insisted upon for consideration of the refund application. Issue also stands decided in the case of PMI ORGANISATION CENTRE PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX, MUMBAI EAST 2022 (3) TMI 192 - CESTAT MUMBAI where it was held that The reasons assigned by the authorities below in this case for denial of the refund benefit to the applicant shall not stand for judicial scrutiny inasmuch as other than the allegation of non-establishment of nexus, the department had never questioned nor pointed out any discrepancy, alleging that the ingredients mentioned in Rule 5 ibid have not been complied with by the appellant. Hence, refund benefit shall not be denied to the appellant. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
- Rejection of refund claims under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004
- Compliance with procedural requirements for refund claims
- Natural justice principles in the adjudication process

Rejection of Refund Claims under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004:
The appeals were filed against the rejection of refund claims by the Commissioner of GST & Central Excise. The appellant had filed two refund claims under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, one for April 2012 to June 2012 and the other for July 2012 to September 2012. The third refund claim was also rejected, leading to the appeals. The adjudicating authority rejected the claims due to deficiencies in document submission and non-compliance with directions. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection based on non-submission of necessary documents despite opportunities provided. The entitlement of refund was questioned based on incomplete submissions and lack of proper documentation.

Compliance with Procedural Requirements for Refund Claims:
The appellant contended that the order was unsustainable due to alleged procedural lapses and lack of natural justice. The Commissioner (Appeals) had given opportunities for personal hearings and document submissions, extending natural justice principles to the appellant. However, the appellant failed to provide all necessary invoices and details, leading to the rejection of the refund claims. The burden of proof regarding the admissibility of Cenvat Credit lay with the appellant, and the lack of proper documentation hindered the refund process. The Adjudicating Authority's decision was upheld due to the appellant's failure to fulfill their obligations in providing complete and satisfactory documentation.

Natural Justice Principles in the Adjudication Process:
The issue of Revenue seeking to modify refund claims without issuing a show cause notice under Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was raised. The decisions in various cases were cited to support the argument that procedural requirements must be followed before modifying refund claims. The appellant's case was compared to previous orders where the nexus between input and output services was not a requirement for refund consideration. The impugned order was found to lack merit based on the cited decisions, leading to the allowance of the appeals in favor of the appellant.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the rejection of refund claims under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, emphasizing the importance of compliance with procedural requirements and natural justice principles in the adjudication process. The decision highlighted the need for complete documentation and adherence to statutory mandates for refund consideration, ultimately allowing the appeals in favor of the appellant.