2021 (12) TMI 152 - AT - Service Tax

Tribunal modifies order, upholds remand, directs refund verification. Appeals disposed with modifications.

M/s. Rosy Blue India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & C. Ex., Mumbai East

The Tribunal modified the impugned order by deleting specific paragraphs, upheld the remand order, and directed the adjudicating authority to verify the ... Refund of CENVAT Credit - input services - grievance is against paras 8.3 and 9 of the impugned order as the findings recorded in these paras are in respect of the issues that were never before the Commissioner (Appela) - failure to comply with the condition prescribed under Rule 6A(c) of export of services - non-fulfilment of condition of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, Rule 6A of Service Tax Rules, 1994 and Notification No.27/2012.CE(NT) dated 18.06.2012 - HELD THAT:- The appellant has no grievance against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) remanding the matter back to the adjudicating authority. However, his grievance is against paras 8.3 and 9 of the impugned order as the findings recorded in these paras are in respect of the issues that were never before the Commissioner (Appela). The ends of justice will be met if these two paras are deleted and the remaining part of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld. After deleting these two paras, we uphold the remand order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) to the adjudicating authority for consideration of the refund claims in terms of the provisions of the law and the documents submitted along with the refund claims and during the proceedings before the adjudicating authority. The provisions as contained in Subsection 1, 2 and 3 of Section 11B, the refund claim needs to verified for correctness by the Assistant Commissioner, and his satisfaction recorded after causing due verification - Appeal allowed by way of remand. Issues:Refund claims rejection under Cenvat Credit Rules.Analysis:The appeals challenged the rejection of five refund claims by the adjudicating authority under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules. The authority rejected the claims citing non-compliance with conditions related to input services and export of services. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the rejection and remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority. The appellants contested specific findings in the impugned order, leading to the current appeals before the Tribunal.The main contention revolved around the rejection of refund claims based on non-compliance with Cenvat Credit Rules and Service Tax Rules. The appellants argued against certain findings in the impugned order, emphasizing the submission of required documents and compliance with relevant notifications. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the remand order but deleted specific paragraphs from the impugned order, directing the adjudicating authority to reconsider the claims in light of applicable laws and submitted documents.The Tribunal reviewed the impugned order and submissions made during the appeals. It highlighted specific paragraphs in the impugned order where the adjudicating authority's observations were questioned by the appellants. After considering the arguments and relevant legal provisions, the Tribunal decided to uphold the remand order while deleting the contentious paragraphs from the impugned order. Additionally, the Tribunal referenced a Supreme Court judgment regarding refund claims arising from appellate or court orders, emphasizing the verification process by the Assistant Commissioner.In conclusion, the Tribunal modified the impugned order by deleting specific paragraphs, upheld the remand order, and directed the adjudicating authority to verify the refund claims in accordance with the law and documents submitted. The appeals were disposed of with these modifications, maintaining the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) in principle.(Order pronounced in the open court)