2016 (12) TMI 734 - AT - Service Tax

Case Remanded for Re-Examination of Documents and Refund Claim, Emphasizing Natural Justice Principles

The Tribunal remanded the case to the original authority for re-examination of documents provided by the appellant and any additional submissions. The ... Rejection of refund claim - rejection on the ground of non-furnishing of the requisite documents and correlation statements - appellant submits that the impugned order is not sustainable as the same has been passed without seeing the documents produced by the appellant along with the refund claim application. She further submitted that there is no requirement to submit the original documents in order to avail the refund of unutilized CENVAT credit - also reliance was placed on the decision of the case of C Bay Remote Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CST [2016 (8) TMI 990 CESTAT Mumbai] by appellant, where it was held that if the Adjudicating authority has any doubt, he may call for the original documents, in that event appellant should submit original documents as and when required. Held that: - this case needs to be remanded back to the original authority to examine the documents already produced by the appellant and also any other document which the appellant may produce before the original authority and the original authority is directed to decide the refund claim of the appellant keeping in view the judgments passed by the Tribunal and is relied upon by the appellant. - appeal allowed by way of remand. Issues:Refund of unutilized CENVAT credit rejected due to non-furnishing of requisite documents and correlation statements.Analysis:The appellant, registered under Service Tax for providing Information Technology Software and Business Auxiliary Service, exported all services outside India. They used various input services but could not utilize CENVAT credit for service tax payment. A show-cause notice was issued proposing to deny the refund claim citing lack of nexus between input and output services, and non-production of original invoices. The adjudicating authority rejected the claim, upheld by the Commissioner (A). The appellant appealed to the Tribunal against this decision.During the hearing, the appellant's counsel argued that the impugned order was unsustainable as it was passed without considering the documents submitted with the refund claim application. It was contended that original documents were not required for refunding unutilized CENVAT credit. The rejection was based on the absence of direct nexus between input and output services, and non-submission of inward remittances, export invoices, and correlation statements. The counsel cited relevant authorities to support the argument.The respondent's representative supported the findings of the impugned order. After reviewing both parties' submissions and the evidence, the Tribunal concluded that the case should be remanded to the original authority for re-examination of the documents provided by the appellant and any additional documents they may submit. The original authority was directed to decide the refund claim in light of Tribunal judgments referenced by the appellant, ensuring compliance with natural justice principles. The impugned order was set aside, and the case was remanded back to the original authority with a directive to issue a reasoned order within three months of receiving a certified copy of the Tribunal's decision.