Cyient Limited Versus CCT, Rangareddy- GST
Service Tax
2018 (11) TMI 832 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – TMI
CESTAT HYDERABAD – AT
Dated:- 18-9-2018
ST/31330/2017, ST/30144-30150/2018, ST/30192/2018, ST/30193/2018 – A/31280-31289/2018
Service Tax
Mr. P. Venkata Subba Rao, Member (Technical)
Shri Sai Kumar, Chartered Accountant for the Appellant.
Shri Guna Ranjan, Shri Dass Thavanam & Shri V.R. Pawan Kumar, Superintendent (ARs) for the Respondent.
ORDER
Per: P. Venkata Subba Rao
These appeals are arise out of the Orders-in-Appeal passed by the First Appellate Authority as follows:
Sl. No.
Appeal No.
Period
OIO No.
OIA No.
1.
ST/30192/2018
Apr 15 to Jun 15
148/2016 – Refund
072 to 074 – 17-18
2.
ST/30193/2018
Jul 15 to Sep 15
149/2016 – Refund
072 to 074 – 17-18
3.
ST/31330/2017
Jan 16 to Mar 16
442/2016 – Refund
067-17-18
4.
ST/30144/2018
Apr 14 to Jun 14
208/2016 – Refund
068 to 071- 17-18
5.
ST/30145/2018
Jul 14 to Sep 14
207/2016 –
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ation, the appellant produced some documents based on which the refund claims were partly sanctioned to the appellant by the Adjudicating Authority. Thereafter, the appellant approached the First Appellate Authority, who, in his Orders-in-Appeal gave another chance to the appellant to produce the documents. The First Appellate Authority granted relief to the appellant to the extent they were able to produce documents. The appellant is now in appeal seeking refund of the amounts disallowed by the First Appellate Authority.
3. Learned Chartered Accountant for the appellant admits that they had filed refund claims with deficiencies and could not produce all the documents necessary to substantiate their claims of refund. It is his submission that these deficiencies occurred because compilation of the documents and mapping them against the claims took substantial amount of time and they could not complete the exercise within the time given by the Original Authority as well as First Appella
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
-067-17-18, dt. 22.09.2017
335182
The requirement to produce relevant documents so as to cause verfication of the nature of the services received as well as the value of goods and service tax liable to be paid by the service provider to the government before sanction of the refund claim has not been the time of personal hearing. With regard to non- submission of bank statements evidencing payments made to service providers will be submitted during personal hearing.
Appellant submits that with regard to Non-submission of Input Invoices, they are in the process of collating and will submit the same at satisfied by the appellants even in the appeal proceedings. There is complete failure on the part of the appellants to submit necessary and satisfactory documents to prove receipt of services. They have also failed to prove the fact of payment of tax by them to the service providers. I do not find any infirmity in the decision made by the original authority to reject part of the claim fo
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
and substantive provisions need to be complied with. Equal importance cannot be given for both substantive and procedural provisions in statute.
3
ST/30145/ 2018
Refund claim of Service Tax paid on specified services utilised in SEZ unit under Notf.12/2013-ST, filed on 31.03.2016
2609752
04/2015 to 06/2015
10/2016- S.Tax
0
2609752
OIA-062-064-17-18, dt. 22.09.2017
2609752
4
ST/30146/ 2018
Refund claim of Service Tax paid on specified services utilised in SEZ unit under Notf.12/2013-ST, filed on 30.06.2016
1917701
07/2015 to 09/2016
11/2016- S.Tax
0
1917701
OIA-062-064-17-18, dt. 22.09.2017
1917701
5
ST/30147/ 2018
Refund claim filed u.Notf.12/ 2013-S.T. for refund of S.Tax paid on specified services used in SEZ on 31.03.2015
3535130
04/2014 to 06/2014
208/2016- Refunds
2911104
624026
OIA No.068071-17-18, dt. 22.09.2017
617846
The appellants had failed to submit proof of compliance with conditions of the Notification. Appellants failed to submit input inv
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
said invoices and will submit the same during personal hearing. With regard to Non-submission of bank statement evidencing payments to service providers they will be submitted during personal hearing. Refund not be denied on procedural lapses.
6
ST/30148/ 2018
Refund Filed on 30.06.2015 under Notf.12/2013-ST
1930795
07/2014 to 09/2014
207/2016- Refunds, dt. 09.12.2016
1123675
807120
711821
7
ST/30149/ 2018
Refund filed on 30.09.2015 under Notf. 12/2012-ST.
1104255
10/2014 to 12/2014
206/2016- Refunds dt. 09.12.2016
259182
845073
820353
8
ST/30150/ 2018
Refund filed on 30.09.2016 under Notf. 12/2013- S.T.
1311850
10/2015 to 12/2015
205/2016- Refunds, dt. 09.12.2016
590847
721003
721003
9
ST/30192/ 2018
Refund filed on 24.03.201 6 under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 read with Notf.27/2012-CE (NT0 dt. 18.06.2012
2.3E+07
04/2015 to 06/2015
148/2016, dt. 16.11.2016
22341371
735770
OIA No.072-074-17-18 dt. 22.09.2017
121450
The 1st appellat
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ected refund of Rs. 1,21,450/-
10
ST/30193/ 2018
Refund Claim filed on 30.06.2016 under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 read with Notf.27/20 12-CE(NT) dt. 18.06.2012
1.7E+07
07/2015 to 09/2015
149/2016, dt 16.11.2016
16489203
541508
OIA -072074-17-18, dt. 22.09.2017
310230
1st Appellate authority allowed refund of amount of Rs. 2,31,278/- out of Rs. 5,41,508/- on the ground that the Input Services had nexus with the output service of appellant. However, 1st appellate authority rejected refund of Rs. 3,10,230/- due to non-submission of 21 input invoices. Appellants stated that they would be producing the same during personal hearing. They have submitted only 12 invoices during personal hearing, which are not relevant invoices. The said 12 Invoices submitted do not match with the invoices referrred to in OIO 149/2016. Therefore, Comm'r (AP did not find any reason to interfere with the decision of the original authority in rejecting refund of Rs. 3,10,230/-
4. Learned Departme
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
able to justify their claims with supporting documents. Therefore, the appeals may be rejected and the impugned orders may be upheld.
5. I have considered the arguments on both sides. It is not in dispute that the appellant has not able to fulfilled all the conditions for claiming the refund inasmuch as he has not provided the documentary evidence before the Original Authority as well as the First Appellate Authority to fully justify their refund claim and hence part of their refund claims were rejected. I do not agree with the grounds of appeal which seek to draw a distinction between the procedural requirements and substantial requirement of a notification as the legal position has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court's Constitution Bench in the case of M/s Dilip Kumar and Company (supra) that the exemption notification must be strictly interpreted against the person claiming the benefit of same and any benefit of doubt should go to the Revenue. On the other hand, the appell
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =