Appeal allowed, case remanded for refund claim review under Notification 9/2009-ST. /2009-ST

The appeal was allowed by remanding the case to the Adjudicating Authority, setting aside the first appellate authority's decision. The Tribunal found the appellant had submitted sufficient evidence of service tax payments, supporting their refund claim under Notification No. 9/2009-ST. The Adjudicating Authority was directed to review the duty paying documents provided and sanction the refund claim after verification, granting the appellant a personal hearing opportunity.

---

---

Issues:
Refund claim rejection based on non-furnishing of duty paying documents.

Analysis:
The appellant filed an appeal against the rejection of their refund claim by the first appellate authority. The appellant's representative argued that all necessary documents evidencing payment of service tax were provided to the Adjudicating Authority along with a calculation chart. The appellant highlighted specific invoices, including Bill No. 750379 from Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, to support their claim. The Revenue, represented by Sh. J Nair, defended the lower authorities' decisions.

Upon reviewing the case records, it was noted that the first appellate authority rejected the appeal due to the appellant's alleged failure to furnish duty paying documents. However, the appellant had indeed submitted a calculation sheet and invoices demonstrating service tax payments, such as Bill No. 7850397 from Indian Institute of Technology Bombay. The documents provided by the appellant were deemed sufficient evidence to support their claim under Notification No. 9/2009-ST dated 03.03.2009. The Tribunal concluded that the matter should be remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority for further verification. The Adjudicating Authority was instructed to review all duty paying documents indicated in the calculation chart submitted with the refund application and, upon verification, sanction the refund claim. The appellant was also granted the opportunity for a personal hearing to explain their case.

Ultimately, the appeal was allowed by remanding the case to the Adjudicating Authority, thereby setting aside the first appellate authority's decision dated 13.03.2013.

---