2023 (3) TMI 235 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of service tax paid - refund claim rejected by the adjudicating authority as sufficient documents were not produced before him including the invoices issued by M/s. Kinfra and also the worksheets submitted by the appellant did not tally with the refund claim - HELD THAT - There is no dispute about the admissibility in principle the refund in view of Section 104 of the Finance Act 2017. The refund claim was filed within prescribed time period of six months as stipulated under Section 104 of the Finance Act, 2017. The only issue to be addressed now is correctness of the documents vis- -vis the quantum of claim filed by the appellant. The adjudicating authority categorically made observation that the worksheets submitted by the appellant did not tally with the services tax challans etc. issued by M/s. Kinfra. To meet the ends of justice it is prudent to remand the matter to the adjudicating authority only for the limited purpose of verification of the documents on record and the documents that would be submitted by the appellant during the remand proceedings so as to verify the claim filed by the Appellant. It is stated by the Ld.CA that the appellant would furnish all the documents within a fortnight from the date of communication of this order - Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection due to insufficient documents and discrepancies in worksheets.

Analysis:
The appeal was against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals), Cochin, rejecting a refund claim for service tax paid on a lease premium. The appellant provided fabrication services from premises leased from KINFRA and claimed exemption based on Notification No. 41/2006. The refund claim was rejected due to lack of documents, including invoices from KINFRA, and discrepancies in the worksheets submitted. The appellant later obtained the necessary documents but failed to present them before the authorities initially. The Chartered Accountant for the appellant cited a Tribunal order where a similar refund claim was allowed under comparable circumstances.

The Authorised Representative argued that the newly procured documents needed verification for authenticity and accuracy. He highlighted discrepancies between the worksheets and certificates from KINFRA, asserting that the case law cited by the appellant was not applicable. The Tribunal acknowledged the admissibility of the refund claim under Section 104 of the Finance Act, 2017, within the prescribed time limit. The main issue was the accuracy of the documents concerning the claim amount. The adjudicating authority noted discrepancies between the appellant's worksheets and KINFRA's documents. The Chartered Accountant contended that the newly obtained invoices and certificates could support the correct refund amount. The Tribunal decided to remand the matter to the adjudicating authority solely for document verification, considering the ends of justice. The appellant was instructed to submit all documents within a fortnight for scrutiny, with a three-month timeframe set for adjudication to address the prolonged pending status of the refund claim. The appeal was disposed of by remanding it to the adjudicating authority for further review.