2018 (5) TMI 1864 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal remands case for fresh decision due to improper consideration of original documents.

M/s. Mangal Steel Enterprises Ltd. Versus CGST & C. Ex, Howarah

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, remanding the case to the Adjudicating Authority for a fresh decision. The Tribunal found that the original documents ... Refund of service tax - N/N. 52/2011-ST dated 30/12/2011 - export of services - principles of unjust enrichment - Held that:- The Adjudicating Authority has observed that appellant assessee failed to establish any co-relation between bills/invoices/challans with specific export consignment, ARE- 1/Shipping Bill wise - The Adjudicating Authority has also observed that the appellant failed to submit essential and relevant documents and clarification pertaining to discrepancy pointed out regarding their refund claim. Thus, the Lower Authority have not considered the documents placed by the appellant - matter is remanded to the Adjudicating Authority to decide afresh after considering the submission of the appellant and to pass order in accordance with law - appeal allowed by way of remand. Issues involved: Refund claim under Notification No. 52/2011-ST dated 30/12/2011 for Service Tax paid on specified services used for export; Adjudication Order rejecting appeal due to lack of original documents; Appeal before the Tribunal challenging the rejection.Analysis:1. The Appellants, engaged in manufacturing goods under Chapter 73 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, submitted a refund claim for Service Tax paid on services used for export. The claim was made in accordance with Notification No. 52/2011-ST dated 30/12/2011. The services included terminal handling charges, fumigation service, clearing and forwarding services, among others, utilized for exporting goods during a specific period.2. A Show Cause Notice was issued to the Appellants to establish that the doctrine of unjust enrichment did not apply in their case and to provide all relevant documents supporting their refund claim. The Assistant Commissioner (Appeals) subsequently rejected the appeal filed by the assessee.3. The Appellants then approached the Tribunal to challenge the rejection of their appeal by the Assistant Commissioner (Appeals). During the hearing, both sides presented their arguments, and the Tribunal examined the appeal records.4. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the Adjudication Order primarily because the appellant failed to submit original documents related to export and specific bills/invoices showing payment of Service Tax. The Adjudicating Authority observed a lack of correlation between documents and export consignments, as well as discrepancies in the refund claim.5. The Appellant contended that they had indeed submitted the necessary documents with references to export consignments, including container numbers and other relevant information. However, the Adjudicating Authority did not consider these documents while making its decision.6. Upon reviewing the arguments and evidence presented, the Tribunal found that the Lower Authority had not properly considered the documents provided by the appellant. Consequently, the Impugned Order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for a fresh decision considering the submissions made by the appellant.7. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by remanding the case to the Adjudicating Authority for a reevaluation and a new order to be passed in accordance with the law. The operative part of the order was pronounced in open court, concluding the proceedings in favor of the Appellants for further review and consideration by the Adjudicating Authority.