Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Repro India Limited vs Commissioner, Central Excise, Belapur on 13 April, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. II APPEAL NO. ST/86831/13 [Arising out of Order-in- Appeal No. BC/512/BEL/2012-13 dated 22/1/2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise(Appeals), Mumbai-III] For approval and signature: Honble Mr Ramesh Nair, Member(Judicial) =======================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No
the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the :
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : seen
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental: Yes
authorities?
=======================================================
M/s. Repro India Limited
:
Appellants
VS
Commissioner, Central Excise, Belapur
:
Respondent
Appearance
Shri. Vinay Jain, C.A. for the Appellants
Shri. B. Kumar Iyer, Superintendent (A.R.) for the Respondent
CORAM:
Honble Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial)
Date of hearing: 13/4/2016
Date of decision: 13/4/2016
ORDER NO.
Per : Ramesh Nair
This appeal is directed against Order-in- Appeal No. BC/512/BEL/2012-13 dated 22/1/2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise(Appeals), Mumbai-III, whereby Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) rejected the appeal of the appellant by maintaining rejection of refund claim filed by the appellant under Notification No. 17/2009-ST. Ground for the rejection of the claim is that the appellant have not produced original documents.
2. Shri. Vinay Jain, Ld. C.A. appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that they have submitted photo copies of the documents and provided C.A. certificate and also list of input service invoices duly certified by the C.A. He submits that as per the procedure, as provided under Circular No. 120/01/2010-ST dated 19/1/2010, originals are not required to be submitted. In view of C.A. Certificate and list of input service invoices, duly certified by the C.A. would be sufficient, which appellant had complied with, therefore original documents were not warranted. Alternatively, he submits that if at all, the adjudicating authority requires originals for processing the claim, they are prepared to produce the same, if opportunity is given.
3. Shri. B. Kumar Iyer, Ld. Superintendent (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He submits that despite filing of C.A. certificate, if the officer is of the view that the originals have to be verified then assessee is required to produce originals also. Relaxation is provided under circular dated 19/1/2010 only in such cases where records are voluminous. He submits that in view of the small amount of Rs. 2,74,729/-records cannot be so voluminous, the same could have been produced before the authority.
4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the record.
5. I find that vide Circular No. 120/01/2010-ST dated 19/1/2010 procedure has been laid down and according to which in lieu of original documents, C.A. certificate and list of invoice of input service, duly certified by the C.A. should be sufficient for processing refund claim filed under Notification No. 17/2009-ST dated 7/7/2009. However Ld. Counsel for the appellant has expressed his view that if at all originals are required, appellant will produce the same. In view of the above position, I remand the matter to the Original Adjudicating authority to reprocess their claim. In case, adjudicating authority feels or has any doubt about the veracity of C.A. certificate and other documents, may call for originals. Appeal is allowed by way of remand. Needless to say that, appellant shall be given sufficient opportunity of personal hearing before disposal of the refund claim.
(Dictated in court) Ramesh Nair Member (Judicial) sk 3 ST/86831/13