2015 (11) TMI 619 - AT - Service Tax

Denial of refund claim - Business Auxiliary Services - assessee has failed to produce original GAR and other documents evidences payments before the adjudicating authority - Held that - Assessee respondent having contested of none applicability of tax under Business Auxiliary Services before the tribunal nothing is brought on records that the said order is contested by revenue. - Tribunal categorically held in the favor of the assessee respondent by an order dated 2.4.2010 and if it is so tax liability discharged by appellant assessee respondent is not in doubt. Consequent to the said order in his favor assssee respondent filed the refund claim before the adjudicating authority. I find that the arguments put forth by the learned departmental representative will not carry the case for the Revenue any further for a simple reason that discharge of tax liability has never been contested in as much it is on record that amounts paid by the appellants were appropriated by the lower authorities in the first round of litigation. As regards other points raised by the learned departmental representative that there is a mismatch of chalans produced and PLA. I find that there is no dispute that the entire amount as tax liability has been paid by respondent and having been appropriated by the lower authorities in order in original now department cannot turn around and say There is no payment of amount in the absence of documents. On such a background I find that the findings recorded by the first appellate authority in the impugned order are correct. - Decided against Revenue.

Issues:
1. Appeal filed by Revenue against Order-in-Appeal
2. Disposal of appeal and cross objection
3. Refund claim filed by appellant
4. Submission of original documents by assessee
5. Tribunal's order on tax liability
6. Contention on mismatch of chalans and PLA
7. First appellate authority's decision
8. Correctness of impugned order

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal. The respondent also filed a cross objection. Both the appeal and cross objection were disposed of by a common order.

2. The court rejected the respondent's application for adjournment as the issue involved in the Revenue appeal was narrow. The appeal was taken up for disposal without further delay.

3. The appellant filed a refund claim of Rs. 21,02,359 following a Tribunal order that held the service tax paid by the respondent for 'Business Auxiliary Services' as non-taxable. The lower authority rejected the refund claim, but the first appellate authority set aside the order-in-original and allowed the respondent's appeal.

4. The departmental representative argued that the assessee failed to produce original documents evidencing payment before the adjudicating authority. He relied on legal precedents to support the contention that a refund claim without relevant documents is rejectable.

5. The Tribunal's order dated 2.4.2010 favored the assessee, confirming the non-applicability of tax under 'Business Auxiliary Services.' The tax liability discharged by the appellant was not in doubt, as it was never contested by the revenue.

6. The contention about a mismatch between the chalans produced and the PLA was addressed. The entire tax liability was paid and appropriated by the lower authorities, making it baseless to claim non-payment due to document discrepancies.

7. The first appellate authority's decision to set aside the order-in-original was deemed correct based on the findings that the tax liability was discharged by the appellant and that the arguments raised by the departmental representative lacked merit.

8. The impugned order was considered correct, legal, and free from any infirmity. The appeal by the Revenue was rejected, and the cross objection by the respondent was also disposed of in line with the findings of the first appellate authority.

← Previous Next →