Rughani Brothers vs Commissioner Of Service Tax

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI

COURT No. II

APPEAL No.S/87815/14

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.PD/ST-I/517/2014 dated 23/04/2014 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai)

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr. P.R. Chandrasekharan, 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?

========================================

Rughani Brothers Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai Respondent

Appearance: Shri.R.V.Shetty, Advocate for appellant Shri.R.K.Das, Dy. Comm. (AR) for respondent

CORAM: Honble Mr. P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical)

Date of Hearing : 31/03/2015 Date of Decision : 31/03/2015

ORDER NO

The appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No.PD/ST-I/517/2014 dated 23/04/2014 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai. Vide the impugned order, the learned lower appellate authority has rejected the refund claim of M/s.Rughani Brothers amounting to Rs.1,30,275/- under Notification No.41/2007-ST dated 06/10/2007 on the ground that the appellant failed to submit relevant documents to show that the input services on which credit has been taken were utilised for the goods exported and also the appellant had claimed draw back under the Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995. Hence, the appellant is before me.

2. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that they had submitted all the requisite documents under the cover of their letter dated 13/09/2012 before the lower appellate authority as also before the adjudicating authority and these documents have not been examined by the authorities and the refund claim has been dismissed by stating that the documents not been submitted. He also points out that no show-cause notice has been issued before rejecting the refund claim. It is his contention that if an opportunity be given, the appellant would submit all the requisite documents once again before the authority to satisfy that they are rightly entitled for the refund claim. As regards, the contention relating to availment of drawback, he submits that the period of refund claim is April to June 2009 and at that time there was no provision for sanction of drawback of service tax paid and the appellant has not violated any condition relating to the availment of drawback.

3. The learned Deputy Commissioner (AR) appearing for the Revenue, while reiterating the findings of the lower appellate authority, submits that in the interest of justice, the matter be remanded back to the adjudicating authority for denovo consideration.

4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides.

4.1 I am of the considered view that the matter needs to go back to the original adjudicating authority for verification of the documents supplied by the appellants in respect of their claim for refund. In case any documents are found wanting, the same shall be intimated to the appellant in writing and the appellant be given an opportunity to produce the same. Thus the appeal is allowed by way of remand.

(Dictated in Court)

(P.R. Chandrasekharan) Member (Technical)

pj

1 3