The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), remanded back matter for consideration of documentary evidence and departmental records in a case regarding service tax refund. The appellant in the present matter is M/s. Acclaris Business Solutions Private Ltd.
The Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that they had filed a refund claim for Rs.9 lakhs in terms of Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Adjudicating Authority after verifying the documentary details submitted before them, granted refund of Rs.6 lakhs and rejected the refund claim of Rs.3 lakhs.
The Appellant did not contest the rejected refund amounting to Rs.32,572 and contested the balance amount of Rs.2,85,269 before the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant further contended that they produced submitted the original documents that were available and in some cases photocopies of some documents were produced. In majority of the cases, they have fulfilled all requirements. Because of the format of date adopted by them the same is not tallying with the invoice date.
The Commissioner (Appeals) held that these invoices are not pertaining to the refund claim. The Appellant submitted that this is only on account of error on account of date format. Otherwise, the invoice details, value details and Service Tax details all are perfectly matching. In respect of the refund claim on account of Service Tax paid by them on RCM basis, the same was rejected as the copies of challans have not been made available.
The Authorised Representative reiterated the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) wherein it has held that since the invoice dates are not matching the refunds have been rejected.
The Tribunal of (R. Muralidhar) Member (Judicial), observed that “since all the claims made by the Appellants are verifiable by the Adjudicating Authority by going through the documentary evidence produced by the Appellant as well as Departmental records being available, I deem it fit to remand the matter of refund to the Adjudicating Authority.”
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the Judgment
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
