2025 (2) TMI 420 - AT - Service Tax

Tribunal sets aside order rejecting abatement claim, remands matter for fresh adjudication on service classification

Nagapriya Constructions Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Nungambakkam, Chennai

The CESTAT Chennai set aside the original order rejecting the appellant's abatement claim for construction services. The tribunal found that the Original ... Abatement claim - construction services - rejection of entire claim on the ground that the appellant had provided only ‘completion and finishing service’ and not ‘construction of commercial complex service’ - rejection of a part of the claim as being barred by limitation - burden pf prove - principles of unjust enrichment - HELD THAT:- The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Smt. J. Yashoda vs Smt. K. Shobha Rani [2007 (4) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT], held that the rule which is the most universal, is that the best evidence which the nature of the case will admit shall be produced. So long as the higher or superior evidence is within a persons possession or may be reached by him, he shall give no inferior proof in relation to it. In the present case the Original Authority has at para 12.4 of the OIO, stated that the appellant had not furnished contract copies in spite of repeated reminders. No copies of the contract stated to have been submitted to the Original Authority and First Appellate Authority (if any), is seen filed along with the Appeal Memorandum. It is not required to examine the matter independently and disturb the findings of the Lower Authorities. The ends of justice would be met by remanding the matter to the Original Authority and facilitating the appellant from furnishing the requisite contract copies so that the issue of classification can be examined in its proper perspective and a decision arrived at. Rejection of a part of the claim as being barred by limitation - HELD THAT:- The appellant has stated that the excess amounts were paid by mistake and could not be termed as duty/ service tax and hence, the same would be outside the purview of Section 11B of the Act. It is the appellants opinion that the department has no authority to retain such amount and therefore they are entitled for the refund of the said amount. Revenue has contested this plea citing the judgment in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. [1996 (12) TMI 50 - SUPREME COURT] - Hence as per the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court the right which accrues in favour of the appellant to claim the refund is under section 11B of the Central Excise Act 1944 and therefore, the limitation prescribed under the section would apply. Burden pf prove - principles of unjust enrichment - HELD THAT:- As per the judgement even in the case of an illegal levy or a levy which is unconstitutional, the right of refund is not automatic. The burden of proof lies on the claimant to establish that it would not cause unjust enrichment. Conclusion - The impugned order is set aside and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the principles of natural justice and the need for a thorough review of the evidence. Appeal allowed by way of remand. The appeal in this case was filed against an Order in Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai. The appellant, engaged in providing construction services, claimed a refund of excess service tax paid. The dispute revolved around whether the appellant provided full construction services or only finishing services, and the rejection of part of the claim as time-barred.The appellant argued that they had provided full construction services based on contracts and bill copies submitted as evidence. They contended that the rejection of the refund claim was erroneous and cited various case laws in support of their position. On the other hand, the respondent argued that the appellant failed to provide contract copies despite reminders and that the claim was time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act.The Tribunal analyzed the issues and found that the appellant's failure to provide contract copies hindered a proper assessment of the classification of services rendered. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of providing the best evidence available to support refund claims. As a result, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the Original Authority for reevaluation after the appellant submits the necessary contract copies.Regarding the rejection of part of the claim as time-barred, the Tribunal considered the appellant's argument that the excess amounts were paid by mistake and should be refunded. However, the Tribunal noted the legal framework under Section 11B of the Act and the burden of proof on the claimant to establish entitlement to a refund. The Tribunal directed the Original Authority to provide detailed reasoning on the time-barred aspect upon reexamination.In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the principles of natural justice and the need for a thorough review of the evidence. The appellant was instructed to cooperate with the adjudicating authority and provide all necessary documents for a fair and expedited process. The appeal was disposed of accordingly, with the appellant eligible for consequential relief as per the law.This judgment highlights the importance of providing comprehensive evidence to support refund claims and the adherence to legal provisions governing time limitations for such claims. The decision underscores the need for a fair and thorough review process to ensure proper adjudication of disputes in tax matters.