Case Law Details
The only ground on which the refund claim has been rejected is that the original copy of TR-6 challan was not produced. Since according to the appellant, the original copy is now available with them, the appellant are directed to produce the same before the original Adjudicating Authority. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside and the matter is remanded to the original Adjudicating Authority for reconsidering the refund application on merits after taking into account the original copy of the TR-6 challan produced by the appellant. The same can be accepted, if on verification, the department is satisfied about its authenticity.
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
WEST BLOCK NO.2 R K PURAM, NEW DELHI-110066
PRINCIPAL BENCH
COURT NO.III
Service Tax Appeal No. 923 of 2010 (SM)
Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No.156/MA/GGN/2010 Dated: 6.4.2010
Passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Rohtak
Date of Decision: 13.01.2011
M/s KAFILA FORGE LTD.
Vs
CCE, ROHTAK
Appellant Rep by: Shri R K Philips, Adv.
Respondent Rep by: Shri S K Bhaskar, DR
CORAM: Rakesh Kumar, Member (T)
FINAL ORDER NO.60/2011 SM(BR)
Per: Rakesh Kumar:
The appellant are manufacturer of auto parts which are also exported by them. For procuring export orders they utilized the services of marketing agent abroad to whom commission was being paid and on which service tax was being paid under Section 66A of Finance Act, 1944 readwith Rule 2 (1) (d) (iv) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. According to the appellant, in October 2006 there was excess payment of service tax to the tune of Rs. 1,46,888/- for which the refund application was filed on 22/10/07 to the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner without going into the merits of the case rejected the refund application on the ground that alongwith the refund application, the appellant have not enclosed the original copy of the TR-6 challan but have attached only photocopy. On appeal to Commissioner (Appeals), the Assistant Commissioner’s order was upheld. It is against this order that the present appeal has been filed.
2. Heard both the sides.
3. Shri R.K. Philips, Advocate, the learned Counsel of the appellant, at the time of hearing pleaded that though at the time of filing refund claim, the original TR-6 challan having been misplaced could not enclosed and for this reason only photocopy, which was available, had been enclosed, and even at the time of appeal proceedings before CCE (Appeals), the original challan could not produced, the appellant have now been able to locate the original copy of the challan, that one copy of the TR-6 challan which is filed alongwith ST-3 return is also available with the Department and that the authenticity of the original copy of challan now available with the appellant, can be verified by the department. He, therefore, pleaded that the department should consider their refund claim on the basis of original copy of the challan now available with them.
4. Shri S.K. Bhaskar, the learned Departmental Representative pleaded that the authenticity of the original copy of the challan produced now can be verified only by the original Adjudicating Authority and he has no objection for remand of the case for considering the refund claim on merits after verifying the original copy of the challan.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records.
6. The only ground on which the refund claim has been rejected is that the original copy of TR-6 challan was not produced. Since according to the appellant, the original copy is now available with them, the appellant are directed to produce the same before the original Adjudicating Authority. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside and the matter is remanded to the original Adjudicating Authority for reconsidering the refund application on merits after taking into account the original copy of the TR-6 challan produced by the appellant. The same can be accepted, if on verification, the department is satisfied about its authenticity.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court.)
