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)
\nShri Sai Kumar, Chartered Accountant for the Appellant.
\nShri Guna Ranjan, Shri Dass Thavanam & Shri V.R. Pawan Kumar, Superintendent (ARs) for the Respondent.
\nORDER
\nPer: P. Venkata Subba Rao
\nThese appeals are arise out of the Orders-in-Appeal passed by the First Appellate Authority as follows:
\nSl. No.
\nAppeal No.
\nPeriod
\nOIO No.
\nOIA No.
\n1.
\nST\/30192\/2018
\nApr 15 to Jun 15
\n148\/2016 – Refund
\n072 to 074 – 17-18
\n2.
\nST\/30193\/2018
\nJul 15 to Sep 15
\n149\/2016 – Refund
\n072 to 074 – 17-18
\n3.
\nST\/31330\/2017
\nJan 16 to Mar 16
\n442\/2016 – Refund
\n067-17-18
\n4.
\nST\/30144\/2018
\nApr 14 to Jun 14
\n208\/2016 – Refund
\n068 to 071- 17-18
\n5.
\nST\/30145\/2018
\nJul 14 to Sep 14
\n207\/2016 – <\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n 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. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n -067-17-18, dt. 22.09.2017 = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n and substantive provisions need to be complied with. Equal importance cannot be given for both substantive and procedural provisions in statute. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n 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. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ected refund of Rs. 1,21,450\/- = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n able to justify their claims with supporting documents. Therefore, the appeals may be rejected and the impugned orders may be upheld. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Cyient Limited Versus CCT, Rangareddy- GSTService Tax2018 (11) TMI 832 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – TMICESTAT HYDERABAD – ATDated:- 18-9-2018ST\/31330\/2017, ST\/30144-30150\/2018, ST\/30192\/2018, ST\/30193\/2018 – A\/31280-31289\/2018Service TaxMr. 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. … Continue reading “Cyient Limited Versus CCT, Rangareddy- GST”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-15040","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15040","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=15040"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15040\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=15040"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=15040"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=15040"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n3. 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<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n335182
\nThe 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.
\nAppellant 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<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n3
\nST\/30145\/ 2018
\nRefund claim of Service Tax paid on specified services utilised in SEZ unit under Notf.12\/2013-ST, filed on 31.03.2016
\n2609752
\n04\/2015 to 06\/2015
\n10\/2016- S.Tax
\n0
\n2609752
\nOIA-062-064-17-18, dt. 22.09.2017
\n2609752
\n4
\nST\/30146\/ 2018
\nRefund claim of Service Tax paid on specified services utilised in SEZ unit under Notf.12\/2013-ST, filed on 30.06.2016
\n1917701
\n07\/2015 to 09\/2016
\n11\/2016- S.Tax
\n0
\n1917701
\nOIA-062-064-17-18, dt. 22.09.2017
\n1917701
\n5
\nST\/30147\/ 2018
\nRefund claim filed u.Notf.12\/ 2013-S.T. for refund of S.Tax paid on specified services used in SEZ on 31.03.2015
\n3535130
\n04\/2014 to 06\/2014
\n208\/2016- Refunds
\n2911104
\n624026
\nOIA No.068071-17-18, dt. 22.09.2017
\n617846
\nThe appellants had failed to submit proof of compliance with conditions of the Notification. Appellants failed to submit input inv<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n6
\nST\/30148\/ 2018
\nRefund Filed on 30.06.2015 under Notf.12\/2013-ST
\n1930795
\n07\/2014 to 09\/2014
\n207\/2016- Refunds, dt. 09.12.2016
\n1123675
\n807120
\n711821
\n
\n7
\nST\/30149\/ 2018
\nRefund filed on 30.09.2015 under Notf. 12\/2012-ST.
\n1104255
\n10\/2014 to 12\/2014
\n206\/2016- Refunds dt. 09.12.2016
\n259182
\n845073
\n820353
\n
\n8
\nST\/30150\/ 2018
\nRefund filed on 30.09.2016 under Notf. 12\/2013- S.T.
\n1311850
\n10\/2015 to 12\/2015
\n205\/2016- Refunds, dt. 09.12.2016
\n590847
\n721003
\n721003
\n
\n9
\nST\/30192\/ 2018
\nRefund filed on 24.03.201 6 under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 read with Notf.27\/2012-CE (NT0 dt. 18.06.2012
\n2.3E+07
\n04\/2015 to 06\/2015
\n148\/2016, dt. 16.11.2016
\n22341371
\n735770
\nOIA No.072-074-17-18 dt. 22.09.2017
\n121450
\nThe 1st appellat<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n10
\nST\/30193\/ 2018
\nRefund Claim filed on 30.06.2016 under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 read with Notf.27\/20 12-CE(NT) dt. 18.06.2012
\n1.7E+07
\n07\/2015 to 09\/2015
\n149\/2016, dt 16.11.2016
\n16489203
\n541508
\nOIA -072074-17-18, dt. 22.09.2017
\n310230
\n1st 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\/-
\n
\n4. Learned Departme<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n5. 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<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n