Apnacar.Com Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Tax (CESTAT Bangalore)
On merits, the adjudicating authority has observed that the appellant’s claim was not supported by any documentary evidences. Further, I also find that the Chartered Accountant certificate furnished by the appellant is given in 2019 while the payments were made in the year 2008. The Chartered Accountant has specified that the said certificate was issued at the ‘request of the appellant’. Hence the certificate is only a self serving document which cannot be considered as a conclusive proof to decide the issue. Law provides permissible documentary evidences that are accepted by the sanctioning authority and apparently, no effort seems to have been made by the appellant in this regard. But considering the fact that the refund is subject to Section 11B wherein the authority has to credit the amount claimed to the welfare fund if the claimant is not entitled for the same, which having not been done, I am of the view that the appellant deserves a second chance.
In the light of the above discussion, I deem it proper to set aside the impugned order and remand the case back to the file of adjudicating authority before whom the appellant shall furnish necessary documentary evidences in support of its claim and the adjudicating authority shall thereafter pass a speaking order after considering all such evidences that may be furnished by the appellant in this regard.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT BANGALORE ORDER
The only issue to be decided in this appeal is, whether the appellant is entitled for the refund of Rs. 13,28,220/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Twenty Eight Thousand Two Hundred and Twenty only) under Section 13B of the Central Excise Act, 1944?
2. Shri Ramesh Ananthan, learned Advocate appeared for the appellant and Shri P. Gopakumar, learned DR appeared for the Revenue.
3. The factual matrix leading to the present dispute, as could be gathered from the orders of lower authorities and the arguments of both the sides, are summarized below:
