M/S. Tikaula Sugar Mills Ltd vs Cce, Meerut-I

[Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No.14/ST/MRT-I/2014 dt.22.4.14 passed by the CCE (Appeals), Meerut-I)

Date of Hearing/Decision: 12.5.2015

For Approval &signature:

Honble Mr.Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

1. Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2. Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? No 3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order? seen 4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities? Yes

M/s. Tikaula Sugar Mills Ltd. Appellant

Vs.

CCE, Meerut-I Respondent

Appearance

Ms. Rinki Arora, Advocate for the appellant

Shri G.R.Singh, AR for the respondent

CORAM: Honble Mr.Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

FINAL ORDER NO.51707/2015

Per Ashok Jindal :

The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the refund claim rejected by the lower authorities.

2. The facts of the case are that the appellant filed refund claim of service tax paid on GTA service twice by them due to clerical error on for the month March, 2013. The payment of service made twice has reflected in the ST3 returns as well as the appellant produced challan but refund claim has been rejected by the lower authorities on the premise that the appellant has not produced supporting documents that the payment has been made twice by them.

3. Heard the parties and considered the submissions.

4. It is not in dispute that the appellant has paid service tax twice. Further, the appellant has produced CA certificate before the adjudicating authority in support of their claim for satisfaction of the adjudicating authority. Instead of examining of these documents, he rejected the refund claim on the ground that the appellant has not produced any supporting documents. In the absence of any particular document, which is required for his satisfaction, the refund claim cannot be rejected by the adjudicating authority as well as appellate authority. In these circumstances, I find that as the appellant has been able to prove that they have paid service tax twice during the month of March, 2013. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to refund of the excess service tax paid by them. Therefore, I set aside the impugned order and allow the refund claim of the appellant alongwith interest to be paid to the appellant within thirty days of receipt this order. With these terms, the appeal is allowed.

(dictated& pronounced in the open court)

(Ashok Jindal)

Member (Judicial)

mk

1