TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 832X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 30150/2018, ST/30192/2018, ST/30193/2018 - A/31280-31289/2018 - Dated:- 18-9-2018 - Mr. P. Venkata Subba Rao, Member (Technical) Shri Sai Kumar, Chartered Accountant for the Appellant. Shri Guna Ranjan, Shri Dass Thavanam Shri V.R. Pawan Kumar, Superintendent (ARs) for the Respondent. ORDER Per: P. Venkata Subba Rao These appeals are arise out of the Orders-in-Appeal passed by the First Appellate Authority as follows: Sl. No. Appeal No. Period OIO No. OIA No. 1. ST/30192/2018 Apr 15 to Jun 15 148/2016 Refund 072 to 074 - 17-18 2. ST/30193/2018 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... antial amount of time and they could not complete the exercise within the time given by the Original Authority as well as First Appellate 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 by 1 st Appellate/ Commr (Appeals) Grounds of Appeal 1 ST/31330/ 2017 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Procedural requirements and technical requirements are liable to be set aside and substantive provisions need to be complied with. Equal importance cannot be given for both substantive and procedural provisions in statute. 3 ST/30145/ 2018 Refund claim of Service Tax paid on specified services utilised in SEZ unit under Notf.12/2013-ST, filed on 31.03.2016 2609752 04/2015 to 06/2015 10/2016- S.Tax 0 2609752 OIA-062-064-17-18, dt. 22.09.2017 2609752 4 ST/30146/ 2018 Refund claim of Service Tax paid on specified services utilised in SEZ unit under Notf.12/2013-ST, filed on 30.06.2016 1917701 07/2015 to 09/2016 11/2016- S.Tax 0 1917701 OIA-062-064-17-18, dt. 22.09.2017 1917701 5 ST/30147/ 2018 Refund claim filed u.Notf.12/ 2013-S.T. for refund of S.Tax paid on specified services used in SEZ on 31.03.2015 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to 12/2015 205/2016- Refunds, dt. 09.12.2016 590847 721003 721003 9 ST/30192/ 2018 Refund filed on 24.03.201 6 under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 read with Notf.27/2012-CE (NT0 dt. 18.06.2012 2.3E+07 04/2015 to 06/2015 148/2016, dt. 16.11.2016 22341371 735770 OIA No.072-074-17-18 dt. 22.09.2017 121450 The 1st appellate authority allowed refund of ₹ 6,14,320/- on the following grounds that (1) the Input Services have nexus with the output services rendered by the appellant (2) That an amount of ₹ 1,41,603/pertains to Erection, Testing and Commissioning Service of Internal Electrical Works and cannot be excluded under Construction of Civil Work. (3) In respect of ₹ 3,30,872/- in the first instant appellant had not taken any credit. Appellant submitted that they claimed refund of service tax charged by M/s Tata Consultancy Services ltd, amounting to ₹ 1,21,450/- and With regard to Non-submission of Input Invo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Revenue and against the assessee. In view of this settled legal position, there is no case for the refund to be sanctioned by allowing the appeals of the appellant because admittedly, they were not 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 Constitution Bench in the case of M/s Dilip Kumar and Company (supra) that the exemption notification must be strictly interpreted against the person claiming the benefit of same and any benefit of doubt should go to the Revenue. On the other hand, the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
