Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cyient Limited vs Rangareddy - G S T on 18 September, 2018
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
REGIONAL BENCH AT HYDERABAD
Bench - SMB
Court - I
Sl. Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Impugned Order
No.
1. ST/31330/2017 Cyient CCT, OIA No. 067-17-18 Limited Rangareddy-
GST
2. ST/30144/2018 -do- -do- OIA No. 068 to 071-17- 18
3. ST/30145/2018 -do- -do- OIA No. 068 to 071-17- 18
4. ST/30146/2018 -do- -do- OIA No. 068 to 071-17- 18
5. ST/30147/2018 -do- -do- OIA No. 068 to 071-17- 18
6. ST/30148/2018 -do- -do- OIA No. 062 to 064 -
17-18
7. ST/30149/2018 -do- -do- OIA No. 062 to 064 -
17-18
8. ST/30150/2018 -do- -do- OIA No. 062 to 064 -
17-18
9. ST/30192/2018 -do- -do- OIA No. 072 to 074 -
17 -18
10. ST/30193/2018 -do- -do- OIA No. 072 to 074 -
17 -18 Appearance Shri Sai Kumar, Chartered Accountant for the Appellant. Shri Guna Ranjan, Shri Dass Thavanam & Shri V.R. Pawan Kumar, Superintendent (ARs) for the Respondent. Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. P. Venkata Subba Rao, Member (Technical) Date of hearing: 18/09/2018 Date of decision: 18/09/2018 FINAL ORDER No. A/31280-31289/2018 [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. Appeal No. Period OIO No. OIA No. No.
1. ST/30192/2018 Apr 15 to Jun 148/2016 - 072 to 074 -
15 Refund 17-18
2. ST/30193/2018 Jul 15 to Sep 15 149/2016 - 072 to 074 -
Refund 17-18
3. ST/31330/2017 Jan 16 to Mar 442/2016 - 067-17-18
16 Refund
4. ST/30144/2018 Apr 14 to Jun 208/2016 - 068 to 071-
14 Refund 17-18
5. ST/30145/2018 Jul 14 to Sep 14 207/2016 - 068 to 071-
Refund 17-18
6. ST/30146/2018 Oct 14 to Dec 206/2016 - 068 to 071-
14 Refund 17-18
7. ST/30147/2018 Oct 15 to Dec 205/2016 - 068 to 071-
15 Refund 17-18
8. ST/30148/2018 Jan 15 to Mar 09/2016 - 062 to 064 -
15 ST 17-18
9. ST/30149/2018 Apr 15 to Jun 10/2016 - 062 to 064 -
15 ST 17-18
10. ST/30150/2018 Jul 15 to Sep 15 11/2016 - 062 to 064 -
ST 17-18
All these appeals pertain to the same issue. The appellant is a SEZ unit and they have filed refund claims under various exemption notifications as above.
2. Refund applications were filed by the appellant. The officers verified the claims and found defects and issued defect memos asking them to rectify the defects. In response, the appellants submitted some documents. Still, it was found that the defects were not fully removed and therefore show cause notices were issued to the appellant asking them as to why the refund should not be denied refund for non fulfillment of the conditions. During adjudication, 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 Appellate Authority. He further submits that they were also not able to produce these documents along with their appeal before this Bench. It is his submission that they have now been able to compile all the documents and bank statements to fully justify each of the refund claims. The details of the refund claims filed the amount sanctioned in the Orders-in-Original and Orders-in-Appeal and the amounts rejected and the reasons given in the grounds of appeals are below:
S.No CESTAT Refund Refund Refund Order-In- Refund Refund Order-In- Refund Reasons given by Grounds Appeal Claim amount Period Original sanction rejected Appeal disallow 1st of Appeal No. Filed date claimed No.442/2016- ed by by OIO No./date ed in Appellate/Comm' Refund/ date OIO in in Rs. OIA in r (Appeals) Rs. Rs.
1 ST/31330/ Refund 1699152 01/2016 442/2016- 1363970 335182 OIA-067-17- 335182 The requirement Appellant 2017 Claim filed to Refund,dt.27.03. 18, to produce submits on 03/2016 2017 dt.22.09.20 relevant that with 29.12.201 17 documents so as regard to 6 in Form to cause Non-
A4 for verfication of the
submissio
refund nature of the
n of Input
u.Notf.12/ services received
2013-S.T. as well as the Invoices,
dt.01.07.2 value of goods and they are in
003 service tax liable the
to be paid by the process of
service provider to collating the government and will before sanction of submit the the refund claim same at has not been satisfied by the the time of appellants even in personal the appeal hearing.
proceedings. With
There is complete regard to
failure on the part
non-
of the appellants
to submit
submissio
necessary and n of bank
satisfactory statement
documents to s
prove receipt of evidencing
services. They payments
have also failed to made to
prove the fact of service
payment of tax by providers
them to the will be
service providers. submitted
I do not find any
during
infirmity in the
personal
decision made by
the original
hearing.
authority to reject
part of the claim
for refund.
2 ST/30144/ Refund 1236948 01/2015 09/2016-S.T. 0 1236948 OIA-062- 1236948 The impugned Procedural
2018 claim filed to 064-17- Notf.12/2013-ST requireme
on 03/2015 18,dt.22.09. vide para 3(III) nts and
31.12.201 2017 (d) specifies that technical
5 for applicant for requireme
refund of refund is required
nts are
Service to submit the
liable to be
Tax paid relevant invoices
on on the basis of set aside
specified which such refund and
services has been claimed substantiv
which are along with proof of e
consumed payment of provisions
in SEZ service tax paid on need to be
under such services to complied
Notf.12/20 service provider. with.
13-ST Such requirment Equal
dt.01.07.2 to produce importanc
013 invoices has not
e cannot
3 ST/30145/ Refund 2609752 04/2015 10/2016-S.Tax 0 2609752 OIA-062- 2609752 been satisfied by
be given
2018 claim of to 064-17- appellants even in
Service 06/2015 18,dt.22.09. appeal for both
Tax paid 2017 proceedings. This substantiv
on is a mandatory e and
specified condition to be procedural
services fulfilled vefore provisions
utilised in such tax can be in statute.
SEZ unit refunded to
under appellants.
Notf.12/20 Appellants also
13-ST, failed to prove
filed on payment of tax by
31.03.201 them to Service
6 provider.
4 ST/30146/ Refund 1917701 07/2015 11/2016-S.Tax 0 1917701 OIA-062- 1917701 Therefore, Comm'r
2018 claim of to 064-17- (Appeals) did not
Service 09/2016 18,dt.22.09. find any infirmity Tax paid 2017 in the decision of on the original specified authoirty.
services utilised in SEZ unit under Notf.12/20 13-ST, filed on 30.06.201 6 5 ST/30147/ Refund 3535130 04/2014 208/2016- 2911104 624026 OIA No.068- 617846 The appellants had Regarding 2018 claim filed to Refunds 071-17-18, failed to submit Non u.Notf.12/ 06/2014 dt.22.09.20 proof of submissio 2013-S.T. 17 compliance with n of input for refund conditions of the invoices of S.Tax Notification.
they are in
paid on Appellants failed
specified to submit input
the
services invoices and process of
used in mapped bank collating
SEZ on statements to the said
31.03.201 verify that the said invoices
5 services are and will
6 ST/30148/ Refund 1930795 07/2014 207/2016- 1123675 807120 711821 received by them. submit the
2018 Filed on to Refunds, dt. They also failed to same
30.06.201 09/2014 09.12.2016 show that the during
5 under value and tax of personal
Notf.12/20 services was paid
13-ST to the service hearing.
provider. With
Thusthere is regard to
complete failure Non-
on the part of the submissio
7 ST/30149/ Refund 1104255 10/2014 206/2016- 259182 845073 820353 appellants to
2018 filed on to Refunds n of bank
submit necessary
30.09.201 12/2014 dt.09.12.2016 and satisfactory
statement
5 under documents to evidencing
Notf.12/20 prove receipt of payments
12-ST. services. They also to service
8 ST/30150/ Refund 1311850 10/2015 205/2016- 590847 721003 721003 failed to prove providers
2018 filed on to Refunds, payment of tax by they will
30.09.201 12/2015 dt.09.12.2016 them to service be
6 under provider. Non submitted
Notf. compliance with during
12/2013- statutory
S.T.
personal
requirements hearing.
which are
Refund
mandatory and
not be
substantive cannot
be brushed as
denied on
aside as procedural
procedural lapses.
infractions.
Accordingly, I do
not find any
infirmity in the
decision of the
original authority.
Refund is allowed
by
Comm'r(Appeals)
on Consulting
Engineering,
Commercial
Training, Man
power recruitment
and Event
management
Services for an
amount of
Rs.6180/- in
respect of OIO
208/2016, an
amount of
Rs.95,299/- in
respect of OIO
207/2016 and an
amount of
Rs.24720/- in
respect of OIO
206/2016.
9 ST/30192/ Refund 2.3E+07 04/2015 148/2016, dt. 2234137 735770 OIA No.072- 121450 The 1st appellate With
2018 filed on to 16.11.2016 1 074-17-18 authority allowed regard to
24.03.201 06/2015 dt.22.09.20 refund of Non-
6 under 17 Rs.6,14,320/- on submissio
Rule 5 of the following n of Input
CCR, 2004 grounds that (1)
Invoices
read with the Input Services
Notf.27/20 have nexus with
they are in
12-CE the output the
(NT0 services rendered process of
dt.18.06.2 by the appellant collating
012 (2) That an the said
amount of Invoices
Rs.1,41,603/- and will
pertains to submit the
Erection , Testing same
and during
Commissioning personal
Service of Internal
hearing.
Electrical Works
and cannot be
excluded under
Construction of
Civil Work. (3) In
respect of
Rs.3,30,872/- in
the first instant
appellant had not
taken any credit.
Appellant
submitted that
they claimed
refund of service
tax charged by
M/s Tata
Consultancy
Services ltd,
amounting to
Rs.1,21,450/- and
they would be
submitting the
relevant invoices
at the time of
personal hearing
before Comm'r
(Appeals).
However,
appellants have
not produced the
same. Therefore,
Comm'r (Appeals)
did not find any
reason to interfere
with this part of
decision of original
authority and
rejected refund of
Rs.1,21,450/-
10 ST/30193/ Refund 1.7E+07 07/2015 149/2016, 1648920 541508 OIA -072- 310230 1st Appellate
2018 Claim filed to dt16.11.2016 3 074-17-18, authority allowed
on 09/2015 dt.22.09.20 refund of amount
30.06.201 17 of Rs.2,31,278/-
6 under out of
Rule 5 of Rs.5,41,508/- on
CCR, 2004 the ground that
read with the Input Services
Notf.27/20 had nexus with
12-CE(NT) the output service
dt.18.06.2 of appellant.
012 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 Departmental Representative takes the bench through the refund claims and the amounts sanctioned and rejected and argued that the appellant has been given more than enough chance to justify their claims and they were sanctioned refunds in terms of exemption notifications to the extent they could justify their claims. The exercise has been going on for one year and nine months. Hence the impugned orders and the orders of the Original Authority were correct and the appeal may be rejected. It is his further submission that the Hon'ble Supreme Court's Constitution Bench in the case of M/s Dilip Kumar and Company Civil Appeal No. 3327/2007, dated 30.07.2018 has held that the provisions of beneficial/exemption notification should be interpreted strictly, and any benefit of doubt should go in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. In view of this settled legal position, there is no case for the refund to be sanctioned by allowing the appeals of the appellant because admittedly, they were not 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 appellant claims that they had fulfilled the conditions of notification and were only not able to justify the same by way of documentation early and they now have all the necessary documents to justify their claims. Considering the both sides of the arguments and that the appellant is an exporter claiming benefit of the exemption notifications (although they were careless in not producing the documents before the First Appellate Authority and Original Authority), I find, that this is a fit case to be remitted back to the Original Authority to examine the additional documents provided by the appellant and decide the refund claims on merit.
6. The appeals are allowed by way of remand to the Original Authority.
(Order pronounced and dictated in open court) (P. VENKATA SUBBA RAO) MEMBER(TECHNICAL) Lakshmi....