The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) of Mumbai Bench allowed the refund of CENVAT Credit of Service Tax based on secondary evidence submitted under section 65 of the Evidence Act, 1872.
WNS Global Services Pvt. Ltd, the appellant challenged the rejection of the refund claim of accumulated CENVAT Credits for non-compliance of conditions enumerated in Notification No. 05/2006-CE(NT) dated 14.03.2006 and Notification No. 27/2012CE(NT) dated 18.06.2012 read with Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
In respect of appeal numbers shown in the cause title in Sr. No. xi to xv, confirmation of rejection of refund claim by the Commissioner (Appeals) for the period from January 2016 to March 2016 of an amount of Rs.2,64,18,796/- on the ground of nonproduction of invoices and non-availability of Appellant’s name in the invoices, for April 2017 to June 2017 for an amount of Rs.2,17,71,862/- on the ground of no nexus with the output service and invoice not raised in the Appellant address, from October 2015 to December.
He further submitted that it is not the correct position of law to test the eligibility of input services used for providing output services while granting refund and the Department is not permitted to look into the requirement of Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 at the time of sanction of refund.
It was observed that the rejection of the refund was solely on the ground that original documents were unavailable, which the Appellant claims to have submitted before the Deputy Commissioner refund at Gurgaon and even had gone to extent of approaching Bombay High Court against rejection of their refund claim for want of original documents, which was allegedly misplaced at the Deputy Commissioner level at their Gurgaon office.
A Coram comprising Mr Sanjiv Srivastava, Member (Technical) and Dr Suvendu Kumar Pati, Member (Judicial) observed that the attested copies of the invoices could have been considered as proof of production of document evidencing payment of duty, against which the creditor claimed. It was worthwhile to reproduce the relevant portion of Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act.Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the Judgment
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates