2023 (6) TMI 588 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of Service Tax paid - rejection on the ground that invoice dates are not matching - reverse charge mechanism - HELD THAT - In respect of Rs.2,78,640/- (Rs.2,85,269-Rs.6,629/-) since all the claims made by the Appellants are verifiable by the Adjudicating Authority by going through the documentary evidence produced by the Appellant as well as Departmental records being available, it is deemed fit to remand the matter of refund of Rs.2,78,640/- to the Adjudicating Authority. He may get the verification done for the documentary evidence placed by the Appellant. He may pass necessary order by following the principles of natural justice within 4 months from the date of communication of this order. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues involved: Refund claim under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, rejection of refund amounts, discrepancies in invoice dates, availability of documentary evidence, remand to Adjudicating Authority for verification.

Refund Claim under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004:
The Appellant filed a refund claim for Rs.9,79,412, out of which the Adjudicating Authority granted Rs.6,61,571 but rejected Rs.3,17,841. The Appellant did not contest the rejected amount of Rs.32,572 and contested the balance of Rs.2,85,269 before the Commissioner (Appeals). They submitted original documents and argued that despite discrepancies in date format, the invoice, value, and Service Tax details matched accurately. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the claim due to mismatch in invoice dates. The Appellant requested a remand to the Adjudicating Authority for further review.

Discrepancies in Invoice Dates:
The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection of the refund claim citing discrepancies in invoice dates as the reason. The Appellant argued that the discrepancies were due to date format errors, asserting that the essential details in the invoices were correct and matching. They contended that the rejection solely based on date format was unjustified.

Availability of Documentary Evidence:
The Appellant claimed that the necessary documents, including copies of challans for Service Tax paid on RCM basis, were available and could be produced for verification. However, they mentioned difficulty in obtaining copies of invoices for a refund claim amounting to Rs.6,623. Despite this, they did not press for the refund of Rs.6,629. The Adjudicating Authority was urged to consider the available documentary evidence for verification.

Remand to Adjudicating Authority for Verification:
Considering that the claims made by the Appellant were verifiable through documentary evidence and Departmental records, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to remand the matter of refund of Rs.2,78,640 to the Adjudicating Authority. The Adjudicating Authority was directed to conduct verification based on the evidence provided by the Appellant and issue a decision within 4 months from the date of communication of the order.

The Appeal was disposed of with the decision to remand the matter for further review and verification by the Adjudicating Authority.