TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appellant's Service Tax refund claim rejection overturned by Tribunal due to lack of justification and procedural errors.</h1> <h3>Woco Motherson Advanced Rubber Technologies Ltd. Versus CCE Rajkot</h3> Woco Motherson Advanced Rubber Technologies Ltd. Versus CCE Rajkot - 2012 (28) S.T.R. 463 (Tri. - Ahmd.) , [2013] 64 VST 495 (CESTAT) Issues:1. Rejection of refund claim due to lack of submission of invoices and proof of payment within the specified time frame.2. Contradictory observations by the original adjudicating authority regarding submission of documents.3. Disagreement on the rejection of the claim based on delay in filing.Analysis:1. The appellant, a SEZ unit, filed a refund claim for Service Tax paid on services but faced rejection for not submitting invoices and proof of payment within 6 months. The appellate authority upheld the rejection citing non-presentation of invoices. The appellant argued that confirmation from the service provider sufficed as evidence of payment, as required by the notification. The absence of a Show Cause Notice for rectification before rejection was also highlighted. The Tribunal found the rejection unjustified, noting the contradictory observations and the submission of necessary documents before the appellate authority.2. The original adjudicating authority's contradictory remarks on the submission of payment details and proof raised concerns. While the authority acknowledged the payment confirmation, it also claimed non-submission of proof. The Tribunal clarified that the notification mandated proof of payment, not just invoices, and deemed the service provider's confirmation satisfactory. The appellant had also submitted invoices and proof of payment, unverified by the appellate authority, leading to the conclusion that the rejection based on this ground was erroneous.3. Addressing the delay in filing the refund claim, the Tribunal emphasized the need for a liberal approach due to the notification's issuance shortly before the claim. Criticizing the Assistant Commissioner's rejection without allowing the appellant to justify the delay, the Tribunal deemed it necessary to condone the delay. Given the submission of invoices and proof of payment, the matter was remanded to the original adjudicating authority for a thorough review and sanction of the refund, with the delay condoned.In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, remanding the matter for fresh consideration by the original adjudicating authority. The decision highlighted the importance of fulfilling notification requirements, addressing contradictory observations, and adopting a fair approach towards delays in refund claim filings.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
