Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Sociedade De Fomento Industrial Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Goa on 22 April, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. I Appeal No. ST/58/09 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. A-47/CEX/Goa/2008-ST dated 12.12.2008 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Goa.) For approval and signature: Honble Mr.S.S. Kang, Vice President Honble Mr. P.K. Jain, Member (Technical) ==========================================================
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 :Yes 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?
========================================================== Sociedade de Fomento Industrial Pvt Ltd Appellant (Represented by: Mr. C.S. Biradar, Advocate) Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Goa Respondent (Represented by: Mr. V.K. Agarwal, Additional Commissioner (AR)) CORAM:
Honble Mr.S.S. Kang, Vice President Honble Mr. P.K. Jain, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing : 26.03.2014 Date of Decision: 22.04.2014 ORDER NO..
Per: S.S. Kang
1. Heard both sides.
2. Appellant filed this appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant filed a refund claim of service tax and education cess amounting to Rs. 25,00,814/- on the ground that appellants were not liable to pay service tax as provider of Road Transport Agency. A Show Cause Notice was issued to the appellant for denial of credit on the ground that appellant had not filed supporting documents alongwith their refund claim. Appellant had not produced the original challans and documents in spite of repeated requests made by the Revenue. The adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim. The appellant filed appeal against the adjudication order before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) after granting opportunity of personal hearing dismissed the appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the appellant had not produced any bill issued by the Transporter showing that the consideration amount is less than Rs. 750/- per trip. The appellant also had not produced any evidence to show that the service providers are not commercial concerns.
4. The contention of the appellant is that the appellant produced photocopies of the relevant documents, as the original copies are to be produced at the time of personal hearing. The services which were provided by the individual truck owners for transportation of goods on consideration of Rs. 750/- per trip and in support of this argument, the appellant produced a statement showing that the individual transporter has issued bills which are less than Rs. 750/- per trip during the period in dispute. In view of the above, the contention is that denial of refund claim is not sustainable.
5. Revenue submitted that as the appellant had not produced the documents in support of the claim as held by the lower authorities, therefore the refund claim is not sustainable.
6. During the arguments, the appellants were directed to produce individual bill issued by the transporters to show that the consideration amount is less than Rs. 750/- per trip. In spite of time granted, the appellant had not produced such bills. Rather the appellant produced a tabulated chart showing payment at the rate per trip and number of trips and distances. As the appellants are claiming refund of service tax already paid on the ground that as the goods transport agency charged less than Rs. 750/- per trip, the onus is on the appellant to prove the claim by producing documentary evidence. Even before the lower authorities, the appellant had not produced such evidence. Before us, in spite of opportunity granted, the appellant had produced only a tabulated chart and not the individual bills in respect of transport of goods showing the charges less than Rs. 750/- per trip.
7. In view of the above, as the appellant failed to produce evidence, we find no infirmity in the impugned order. The appeal is dismissed.
(Pronounced in Court on __.04.2014.) (P.K. Jain) Member (Technical) (S.S. Kang) Vice President rk 3