9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 832X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8 Jul 15 to Sep 15 149/2016 - Refund 072 to 074 - 17-18 3. ST/31330/2017 Jan 16 to Mar 16 442/2016 - Refund 067-17-18 4. ST/30144/2018 Apr 14 to Jun 14 208/2016 - Refund 068 to 071- 17-18 5. ST/30145/2018 Jul 14 to Sep 14 207/2016 - Refund 068 to 071- 17-18 6. ST/30146/2018 Oct 14 to Dec 14 206/2016 - Refund 068 to 071- 17-18 7. ST/30147/2018 Oct 15 to Dec 15 205/2016 - Refund 068 to 071- 17-18 8. ST/30148/2018 Jan 15 to Mar 15 09/2016 - ST 062 to 064 - 17-18 9. ST/30149/2018 Apr 15 to Jun 15 10/2016 - ST 062 to 064 - 17-18 10. ST/30150/2018 Jul 15 to Sep 15 11/2016 - ST 062 to 064 - 17-18 All these appeals pertain to the same issue. The appellant is a SEZ unit and they have filed refund claims un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te Authority. He further submits that they were also not able to produce these documents along with their appeal before this Bench. It is his submission that they have now been able to compile all the documents and bank statements to fully justify each of the refund claims. The details of the refund claims filed the amount sanctioned in the Orders-in-Original and Orders-in-Appeal and the amounts rejected and the reasons given in the grounds of appeals are below: S. No CESTAT Appeal No. Refund Claim Filed date Refund amount claimed Refund Period Order-In-Original No. 442/2016-Refund/ date Refund sanctioned by OIO in Rs. Refund rejected by OIO in Rs. Order-In- Appeal No. /date Refund disallowed in OIA in Rs. Reasons given ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - 18, dt. 22.09.2017 1236948 The impugned Notf. 12/2013-ST vide para 3 (III) (d) specifies that applicant for refund is required to submit the relevant invoices on the basis of which such refund has been claimed along with proof of payment of service tax paid on such services to service provider. Such requirment to produce invoices has not been satisfied by appellants even in appeal proceedings. This is a mandatory condition to be fulfilled vefore such tax can be refunded to appellants. Appellants also failed to prove payment of tax by them to Service provider. Therefore, Comm'r (Appeals) did not find any infirmity in the decision of the original authority. Procedural requirements and technical requirements are liable to be set aside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rocedural infractions. Accordingly, I do not find any infirmity in the decision of the original authority. Refund is allowed by Comm'r (Appeals) on Consulting Engineering, Commercial Training, Man power recruitment and Event management Services for an amount of Rs. 6180/- in respect of OIO 208/2016, an amount of Rs. 95,299/- in respect of OIO 207/2016 and an amount of Rs. 24720/- in respect of OIO 206/2016. Regarding Non submission of input invoices they are in the process of collating the said invoices and will submit the same during personal hearing. With regard to Non-submission of bank statement evidencing payments to service providers they will be submitted during personal hearing. Refund not be denied on procedural lapses. 6 ST ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... levant invoices at the time of personal hearing before Comm'r (Appeals). However, appellants have not produced the same. Therefore, Comm'r (Appeals) did not find any reason to interfere with this part of decision of original authority and rejected refund of Rs. 1,21,450/- 10 ST/30193/ 2018 Refund Claim filed on 30.06.2016 under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 read with Notf.27/20 12-CE(NT) dt. 18.06.2012 1.7E+07 07/2015 to 09/2015 149/2016, dt 16.11.2016 16489203 541508 OIA -072074-17-18, dt. 22.09.2017 310230 1st Appellate authority allowed refund of amount of Rs. 2,31,278/- out of Rs. 5,41,508/- on the ground that the Input Services had nexus with the output service of appellant. However, 1st appellate authority rejected refund of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able to justify their claims with supporting documents. Therefore, the appeals may be rejected and the impugned orders may be upheld. 5. I have considered the arguments on both sides. It is not in dispute that the appellant has not able to fulfilled all the conditions for claiming the refund inasmuch as he has not provided the documentary evidence before the Original Authority as well as the First Appellate Authority to fully justify their refund claim and hence part of their refund claims were rejected. I do not agree with the grounds of appeal which seek to draw a distinction between the procedural requirements and substantial requirement of a notification as the legal position has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court's Constitut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
