Refund cannot be Rejected for Non-Submission of Invoices before Original Authority: CESTAT [Read Order]

The Bangalore Bench of Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal has held that refund cannot be rejected for non-submission of invoices before original authority.

The appellants, Centroid Polymer Technologies, PCON India Extrusions, Rapha Diagnostics Private Limited, VAP Industries, Sariga Apparels Private Limited, Shri Vincent Mani, Revron Industrial Gases, Mother Agro Industries, Prince Touch Food Products and Hemco Equipments have taken industrial land on long term lease from Kerala Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation (KINFRA) and paid upfront amount on long term lease along with service tax to KINFRA who in turn paid service tax to the Government.

The appellants approached the appellate authority for refund of service tax paid, it has rejected their appeals and denied refund on the ground that required documents in terms of Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 as made applicable by Section 83 of Finance Act, 1994 have not been submitted. The appellate authority has rejected documents like invoices evidencing payment of service tax stating that the requisite documents were to be submitted at the adjudicating level not at the appellate level. Aggrieved appellants filed appeal before CESTAT.

The appellant submitted that no service tax is payable on one time upfront amount in respect of taxable service provided or agreed to be provided by a State Government industrial development corporation or undertaking to industrial units by way of grant of long term lease of 30 years or more of industrial plots, shall be levied or collected during the period commencing from the 1st June, 2007 and ending with the 21st September, 2016 and sub-section (2) of Section 104 provided for refund of service tax paid during this period.

The Tribunal in the case of Comfort Night Linen Products has held that “now the appellants have produced sufficient documents to prove the payment of service tax, I do not find any justification for rejection of the refund claims and hence, I set aside the impugned orders by allowing the appeals of the appellant”.

The Coram of Mr. P. Anjani Kumar, Technical Member by relying the decision in Comfort Night Linen Products has held that “I find that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the appellants and the impugned orders are not sustainable. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned orders and allow all the appeals”.

To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.