Service tax refund on abatement requires documentary proof of notification conditions; without contracts or orders, refund fails.

A claim for abatement or refund under the relevant service tax notification fails unless the assessee produces documentary evidence showing that the conditions of the notification are satisfied. Here, the refund claim for erection, commissioning or installation service was rejected because no contract, purchase order, agreement, or other evidence was produced to establish that the gross amount charged met the abatement conditions. The Tribunal treated the appellant's cited precedent as distinguishable because supporting purchase orders or sales contracts had been available in that case. The denial of refund was therefore upheld and the appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to refund of service tax by claiming abatement under the relevant notifications without producing documentary evidence such as contract, purchase order or agreement.

Analysis: The refund claim was rejected because the appellant did not produce any documentary or other evidence to show that the gross amount charged for erection, commissioning or installation service satisfied the conditions for abatement. The earlier Tribunal decision relied on by the appellant was distinguishable, as in that case the relevant purchase orders or sales contracts had been produced and showed that the charges were inclusive of the service element.

Conclusion: The appellant failed to establish entitlement to abatement and refund. The rejection of the refund claim was in law and is upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal does not succeed and the denial of refund stands confirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: A claim for abatement or refund under the notification cannot succeed unless the assessee produces the documentary evidence necessary to show satisfaction of the notification conditions.

---