Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2023 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (3) TMI 130 - AT - Service TaxRejection of refund claim of accumulated CENVAT Credits - non-compliance of conditions enumerated in Notification No. 05/2006-CE(NT) dated 14.03.2006 and Notification No. 27/2012- CE(NT) dated 18.06.2012 read with Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - non- production of invoices and non-availability of Appellant’s name in the invoices - denial also on the ground of nexus with the output service and invoice not raised in the Appellant address - period January, 2012 to March 2015. Rejection of refund on the ground of inadmissible credits for want of nexus between the inputs and outputs - HELD THAT:- Concerning mismatch of FIRC number that resulted in denial of credit to the tune of Rs.3,22,02,524/- and in respect of claim of refund of Service Tax paid under Reverse Charge Mechanism post the period of service taken, Appellant submits that both the issues are now settled through various decisions of this Tribunal which were not considered by the Commissioner (Appeals). Needless to mention here that FIRC receipt date is held to be taken for the purpose of comparison and slight mismatch in numericals could be due to various factors including typographical error, in which case name of the party issuing and receiving the service, exact amount etc. can be accepted as relevant factors for consideration of refund. On Service Tax paid under Reverse Charge Mechanism on the very next month of the quarter in which service was taken, there are force in the submission of learned Counsel that the decision of Tribunal in GUJARAT PIPAVAV PORT LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., BHAVNAGAR [2008 (2) TMI 376 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD] and M/S INDIA CEMENT LTD., VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CUSTOMS AND SERVICE TAX, TIRUPATI [2018 (5) TMI 603 - CESTAT HYDERABAD] could have been taken into consideration by the Commissioner (Appeals) in deciding the issue. Rejection of refund solely on the ground that original documents were unavailable, which Appellant claims to have submitted before the Deputy Commissioner refund at Gurgaon and even had gone to extent of approaching Hon'ble Bombay High Court against rejection of their refund claim for want of original documents, which was allegedly misplaced at the Deputy Commissioner level at their Gurgaon office - HELD THAT:- The relevant provision of Section 65 could have been invoked by the Commissioner (Appeals) in deciding the issue of refund and as a matter of caution, he could have taken an undertaking from the Appellant against any future claim on the same invoices, if found out subsequently. Appeal allowed by way of remand.
|