2023 (8) TMI 254 - AT - Service Tax

Tribunal grants refund claim for service tax on industrial leases due to lack of documentation.

Meck Mills Private Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Tax and Central Excise, Cochin

Meck Mills Private Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Tax and Central Excise, Cochin - TMI Issues Involved:The judgment involves the interpretation of Section 104 of the Finance Act, 1994 with retrospective effect, specifically regarding the exemption and refund provisions related to service tax on one-time upfront amounts for long-term leases of industrial plots provided by State Government Industrial Development Corporations or Undertakings.Issue (a):The first issue in the appeal was whether the appellant had produced the invoice/bill issued by KINFRA for the claim of refund under Section 104 of the Finance Act, 2017. The appellant initially did not have the invoice but later obtained it from KINFRA, submitting it along with the lease agreement, payment receipts, and a declaration from KINFRA confirming the payment of service tax to the Government. The appellant argued that the production of the invoice was crucial for the refund claim, citing precedents where similar cases were decided in favor of the appellants upon the production of invoices.Issue (b):The second issue raised was whether the appellant had provided sufficient documentary evidence to establish that Cenvat credit had not been availed. The appellant, not being registered under Service Tax Law or Excise Laws, contended that the question of availing Cenvat credit did not apply to them. They supported this claim with a certificate from a Chartered Accountant confirming the non-availment and non-passage of Cenvat credit.The judgment analyzed the provisions of Section 104 of the Finance Act, 1994, which exempted service tax on one-time upfront amounts for long-term industrial leases provided by State Government entities. The appellant had filed a refund claim for service tax paid on such a lease, which was rejected by the adjudicating authority and upheld by the first appellate authority due to the non-submission of required documents, namely invoices/bills and proof of non-availment of Cenvat credit. However, during the appeal, the appellant provided the invoices from KINFRA showing payment of service tax and a certificate confirming the non-availment of Cenvat credit. The tribunal found that the appellant had filed the refund claim in time and had now produced sufficient evidence to support their claim. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the previous orders and allowed the appeal with consequential relief.