Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2013 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (2) TMI 79 - AT - Service TaxRefund claim rejected - non justification by the documentary evidences and lack of matching figures - Held that - Appellant has been able to justify the refund claim filed by them which was incorrectly paid or paid twice over as the certificates of chartered accountant, which has not been appreciated by the lower authorities. At the same time, as in the appeal memoranda before the first appellate authority, the appellants have taken other grounds which are not considered and there are no findings in the impugned order, it is not addressing the points raised by the appellants in appeal memoranda and also the factual matrix as regards the evidences that has been produced but has not been appreciated. Thus without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal of assessee by way of remand to the first appellate authority.
Issues:
1. Rejection of refund claim by the adjudicating authority. 2. Lack of justification for the refund claim by the appellant. 3. Non-appreciation of certificates of chartered accountant. 4. Failure to address grounds raised in appeal memoranda. 5. Lack of consideration of evidences produced by the appellant. Analysis: The appeal was filed against the order rejecting the refund claim by the adjudicating authority. The first appellate authority upheld the rejection stating that the appellant failed to justify the refund with documentary evidence and matching figures. However, upon review, it was found that the appellant was able to justify the refund claim, which was incorrectly paid or paid twice over. The certificates of the chartered accountant supporting the claim were not appreciated by the lower authorities. The appellate judge noted that the first appellate authority did not address the points raised in the appeal memoranda and failed to consider the factual matrix and evidences presented by the appellant. As a result, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed by way of remand to the first appellate authority for reconsideration. The appellate judge refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and kept all issues open for further consideration. The decision to remand the case was made to ensure that the principles of natural justice are followed in reconsidering the refund claim. The impugned order was specifically set aside, and the first appellate authority was directed to reevaluate the issue in light of the evidence presented by the appellant and the grounds raised in the appeal memoranda. The judgment concluded with the pronouncement in court, indicating the finality of the decision to remand the case for a fresh review.
|