9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (5) TMI 804 - AT - Service TaxRefund of service tax paid on the input services - time limitation - Not addressed to the registered premises - Invoice not in the name of the assesse - Ineligible input services - Reduction in proportionate refund - CA Certificate not produced - Not an export service - Relevant documents not produced - Mismatch of export proceeds - HELD THAT - The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the findings of the original authority, holding that for a limited ground, the appeals were remanded by his predecessor vide order dated 30.12.2016. However, on examination of such order, it is found that the matter arising out of the adjudication order and as indicated in the appeals filed by the appellant were remanded in totality for a fresh finding in the remand proceedings. Thus, it cannot be said that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has recorded specific finding vide order dated 30.12.2016 with regard to consideration of the limited issued as pointed out by the authorities below in this case. Since, in the remand proceedings, the original authority has not dealt with all the issues arising out of the subject refund applications, the matter should go back to the original authority for a fresh fact finding on all the issues involved in the appeal concerning grant of refund benefit to the appellants. In other words, the original authority should look into all the aspects dealt with by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 30.12.2016, while remanding the matter to him. Relevant date for filing of the refund application - date of payment of service tax on input services or not - HELD THAT - The issue arising out of the present dispute is no more res integra in view of the decisions rendered by the Tribunal in the case of COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, MUMBAI-II VERSUS M/S SITEL INDIA LTD. 2016 (4) TMI 112 - CESTAT MUMBAI and MERRILL TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX 2016 (6) TMI 473 - CESTAT CHENNAI . The ratio laid down under the said decided cases is that the relevant date for filing of the refund application should be construed as the date of filing of the refund application at the end of the quarter for which such benefit is claimed. In the present case, since the appellant has filed the refund application within one year from the end of the relevant quarters, the stand taken by the department in rejecting the refund application on the ground of time barred is not sustainable and the appeals deserve to be allowed in favour of the appellants. Invoices were not addressed in the registered premises of the appellant - HELD THAT - It is found that such findings are factually erroneous inasmuch as the disputed invoices submitted by the appellant demonstrates that the name of the appellants have been mentioned in those invoices. Even assuming that such allegation of department is correct, but the mandatory requirement of claim of refund benefit cannot be whittled down for the procedural lapses. In this context, Rule 9 ibid is aptly clear that if the other requirements provided under the statute are contained in the invoice, the benefit of refund should be allowed by the original authority. Therefore, rejection of the refund benefit on such ground, cannot also stand judicial scrutiny - ends of justice would be met, if the matter is remanded to the original authority for verification of the invoices for ascertaining whether, the name of the appellants is appearing in all the disputed invoices and thereafter to consider the grant of refund in their favour. Denial of the refund benefit on the ground of ineligible input services and absence of nexus - HELD THAT - Both the authorities below have not dealt with the issue of denial of Cenvat Credit in terms of Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules read with Section 73 of the finance Act, 1994. Since, availment of credit at the material time was not disputed by the department, claiming of refund of the accumulated Cenvat Credit on account of exportation of service at a later stage cannot be denied by the department. It is not the case of the department that the appellants had not complied with the requirements of Rule 5 ibid read with the notification issued thereunder for claiming the benefit of refund. Thus, rejection of refund benefit on the ground of non-establishment of nexus between the output service and the input services cannot be sustained. Other issues should be remanded to the original authority for proper verification of the documentary evidences for ascertaining the fact regarding eligibility of the refund benefit to the appellants - In respect of the remand matters, the original authority should adjudicate the matter afresh and should follow the principles of natural justice in granting reasonable opportunity of personal hearing to the appellants. Appeal disposed off.
Issues Involved:
1. Refund claim time-barred. 2. Invoices not addressed to the registered premises. 3. Invoice not in the name of the assessee. 4. Ineligible input services. 5. Absence of nexus. 6. Reduction in proportionate refund. 7. CA Certificate not produced. 8. Not an export service. 9. Relevant documents not produced. 10. Mismatch of export proceeds. 11. Others. Detailed Analysis: 1. Refund Claim Time-Barred: The Tribunal found that the refund applications were filed within the stipulated time frame. The relevant date for filing the refund application should be construed as the date of filing at the end of the quarter for which the benefit is claimed. The appeals were allowed as the refund claims were within the permissible period. 2. Invoices Not Addressed to the Registered Premises: The Tribunal noted that the invoices demonstrated the name of the appellants. Even if the department's allegation was correct, procedural lapses should not negate the mandatory requirement for a refund. The matter was remanded to the original authority for verification of the invoices to ascertain if the appellants' name appeared in all disputed invoices. 3. Invoice Not in the Name of the Assessee: Similar to the issue of invoices not addressed to the registered premises, this matter was also remanded for verification of documents at the original stage. 4. Ineligible Input Services: The Tribunal held that the nexus and eligibility of credit could not be questioned subsequently during the consideration of refund applications under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appeals were allowed since the department did not dispute the availment of credit at the material time. 5. Absence of Nexus: The Tribunal reiterated that the nexus aspect could not be questioned during the refund application process under Rule 5. The appeals were allowed as the department did not dispute the compliance with Rule 5 requirements. 6. Reduction in Proportionate Refund: The Tribunal remanded the matter to the original authority for verification of the factual aspects involved in the appeals. 7. CA Certificate Not Produced: The Tribunal remanded the matter to the original authority for verification of the factual aspects involved in the appeals. 8. Not an Export Service: The Tribunal dismissed the appeals and sustained the impugned order as the appellants did not press for the benefit of the refund claimed. 9. Relevant Documents Not Produced: The Tribunal dismissed the appeals and sustained the impugned order as the appellants did not press for the benefit of the refund claimed. 10. Mismatch of Export Proceeds: The Tribunal remanded the matter to the original authority for verification of the factual aspects involved in the appeals. 11. Others: The Tribunal remanded the matter to the original authority for verification of the factual aspects involved in the appeals. Conclusion: The appeals filed by the appellants were disposed of with directions for the original authority to adjudicate the remand matters afresh, following the principles of natural justice and granting a reasonable opportunity for a personal hearing. The Tribunal allowed the appeals concerning time-barred claims, ineligible input services, and absence of nexus, while dismissing the appeals on the grounds of not being an export service and relevant documents not produced.
|
