Refund Claim of Service Tax Paid rejected without stating Reason: CESTAT sets aside Order and Directs Re adjudication [Read Order]
![Refund Claim of Service Tax Paid rejected without stating Reason: CESTAT sets aside Order and Directs Re adjudication [Read Order] Refund Claim of Service Tax Paid rejected without stating Reason: CESTAT sets aside Order and Directs Re adjudication [Read Order]](https://www.taxscan.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Refund-Claim-of-Service-Tax-Refund-Claim-Service-Tax-CESTAT-Re-adjudication-Refund-Customs-Excise-Taxscan.jpg)
The Kolkata bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) setaside the Order passed by the Commissioner of Appeals where in the refund claim of service tax paid was rejected without stating the reason.
M/s Vedanta Aluminium Ltd, the appellant is located in SEZ and availed certain specific services and filed a refund claim of service tax paid on the said services before the adjudicating authority. Out of 18 Invoices, in the case of 13 Invoices, the adjudicating authority sanctioned the refund claim and for the remaining 5 Invoices, he held that the said Invoices are either fake or are not proper. Therefore, the refund claim is rejected.
The Appellant paid service tax on reverse charge in respect of ‘Rent-a-Cab service’, the challan is sufficient proof of payment for refund claim. As per Service Tax Law, the service tax liability on the service is on the Appellant, the service provider cannot be compelled to disclose the element of service on his invoice. Further, the original copy of the invoice is required in cases where the service tax is paid to the service provider ona forward charge basis, not ona reverse charge basis.
The Appellant also stated that the service provider belongs to an unorganized sector and their billing pattern is based on mere common parlance. The service provider used to write the name of the Appellant as Plant 2 instead of VAL(SEZ). The Appellant Company is known as Plant 2 in Jharsuguda. They have stated that SEZ Act provides for special provisions which have overriding power on all indirect taxes and has been enacted for very special purposes.
The impugned order is a cryptic order, not a speaking order. TheSingle member bench comprising Mr Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) to pass a detailed order on merit after hearing the appellant.
To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates