TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 130X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aken, 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 007 for an amount of Rs.332,77,659/- for none submissions of original documents even at the stage of second round of litigation after being remanded by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and from October, 2016 to December, 2016 for an amount of Rs.1,29,50,527/- paid under Reverse Charge Mechanism in January, 2017 post the end of quarter made on 20.02.2019, 13.01.2020, 05.06.2020, 29.01.2020 and 12.10.2020 respectively are assailed before this Forum by the Appellant. 3. Fact of the case is identical in respect of all these appeals Appellant WNS Global Services Pvt. Ltd. is a multinational engaged in the business of process outsourcing services for its customers in India and Abroad. It operates from SEZ/STPI registered units at various locations in India including Mumbai, Nasik, Pune etc. It had obtained service tax registration under the category of Business Auxiliary Service (BAS). As an export oriented unit, it could not utilised CENVAT Credit of Service Tax taken on input services used for export of BAS. It sought for refund for 10 different periods under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rule read with Notification No. 27/2012- CE(NT) and submitted declarations duly certified by statuto ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In the appeals filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) for the total amount or rejection of refund to the tune of Rs.4,33,23,488/- He had recorded his findings concerning admissibility and nonadmissibility of item wise credits and directed re-quantification of sanctioned refund amount to be done by the adjudicating authority on the basis of his observation. In respect of the other 5 appeals separate orders of rejection were passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on different date, as noted in the preceding paragraph no. 2. 4. During the course of hearing of the appeal leaned Counsels for the Appellant Mr. Shri Rajan Mishra alongwith Shri Suryakant Singh submitted that in respect of Appellant s own case admissibility of those disputed credits was decided in favour of Appellant entitling it to get refunds and the said order of the CESTAT, passed in Departmental appeal, is cited in STR with reference No. 2016 (44) STR 454 (Tri.-Mum.) by them. Mr. Mishra further submitted that issue being identical Appellant is entitled to the refunds that has been rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) in his order dated 22.01.2018. With reference to judgment of this Tribunal passed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Appellant as observed in the preceeding paragraphs in respect of those 10 appeals. However, 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, we find force in the submission of learned Counsel that the decision of Tribunal reported in 2016-TIOL-3217-CESTAT MUMBAI, orders passed in the case of Gujarat Pipavave Port Ltd. in Appeal No. ST/135-136/2007 and India Cement Ltd. reported in 2018 (5) TMI 603 coul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he above provision of law, we are of the considered view that 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. Hence the order. THE ORDER 8. (a) Appeals at Sr. No. (i) to (x) of the cause-title are allowed and the Respondent-Department is directed to release the refunds within 3 months of this order, with interest, if any; (b) Appeals at Sr. No. (xi) (xii) of the cause-title are remanded back for verification of disputed invoices and production of missing invoices, so as to facilitate refund accordingly by the original Authority; (c) Appeals at Sr. No. (xiii) (xv) of the cause-title are remanded back to the original Authority for examination of admissibility of refund rejected due to mismatch of FIRC number and payment of Service Tax under Reverse Charge Mechanism post the end of quarter in which services was taken and; (d) Appeal at Sr. No. (xiv) of the cause-title is remanded back to the original Authority for grant of refund on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
