2018 (11) TMI 89 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – TMI – Refund of service tax credit – N/N. 41/2012 –ST dated 29.06.2012 – only point of contention is that the Assistant Commissioner has not discharged his duty in properly recording his satisfaction of fulfillment of conditions of the notification while sanctioning the refund – Held that:- There is no allegation that the appellant has not fulfilled the conditions mentioned in the notification. In view of this unusual factual matrix in which one of the conditions of the notification was not fulfilled by the Assistant Commissioner (and not by the assessee), this is a fit case remanded back to the Original Authority to satisfy himself and record his satisfaction regarding the fulfillment of the notification and sanction refund to the extent admissible – appeal allowed by way of remand. – Appeal Nos. ST/30015 & 30016/2018 – A/31203-31204/2018 – Dated:- 18-9-2018 – Mr. P. Venkata Subba Rao, Member (Technical) Shri Ch. Sumanth, Chartered Accountant for
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, shall, after satisfying himself,- (i) that the service tax rebate claim filed in Form A-1 is complete in every respect; (ii) that duly certified documents have been submitted evidencing the payment of service tax on the specified services; (iii) that rebate has not been already received on the shipping bills or bills of export on the basis of procedure prescribed in paragraph 2; and (iv) that the rebate claimed is arithmetically accurate, Refund the service tax paid on the specified service within a period of one month from the receipt of said claim: Provided that where the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, has reason to believe that the claim, or the enclosed documents are not in order or that there is a reason to deny such rebate, he may, after recording the reasons in writing, take action, in accordance with the provisions of the said Act and the rules
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
he notification. In fact, they fulfilled all the conditions required in the notification and the documents were duly verified by the range officers who sent reports to the Assistant Commissioner based on which the refunds were correctly sanctioned. It is his contention that even if the Assistant Commissioner has not recorded his satisfaction as per para 3(k) of the notification they cannot be put to loss as it is a condition to be fulfilled by the Assistant Commissioner and not by them. 5. Learned Departmental Representative reiterated the Orders-in-Appeal and argues that para 3(k) of the notification mandatorily requires the Assistant Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner to satisfy himself before sanctioning the refund. The Assistant Commissioner has not discharged his duty in satisfying himself as evident in the Orders-in-Original and hence the Orders-in- Original were correctly set aside by the First Appellate Authority. 6. I have considered the arguments on both sides. The only
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =