Service Tax
TRT-2025-
Cestat Chennai
Date:-11-11-22
In:-
Issue Favourable to Tax Payer ?:-
Order Date: 11 November 2022
Facts:
- The appellant, M/s. Bbazaar Marketing and Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd., filed a refund claim for the refund of Rs.19,79,980/- on 09.07.2018 being the excess Service Tax paid for the period from April 2017 to June 2017.
- The original ST-3 return for the above period was filed on 23.08.2017; that a revised ST-3 return was filed on 08.09.2017 by reducing the taxable value; that the CENVAT Credit availed was based on the debit note raised by M/s. A&A Dukaan Financial Services.
- It was alleged that CENVAT Credit availed was ineligible credit in terms of Rule 9 ibid.; that in the Show Cause Notice, it was proposed that a sum of Rs.10,44,365/- could not be taken into account and therefore, the refund claim to the above extent would be rejected.
- Aggrieved, this appeal is filed.
Issue:
- Whether the appellant is entitled to refund claim
Order:
- The Tribunal observed that document in the case on hand, i.e., the debit note, should contain inter alia the details of Service Tax payable, taxable service, etc., but here, as rightly pointed out by the Learned Departmental Representative, in the ‘Particulars’ column, it is mentioned as “being reimbursement of expenses incurred on behalf of A&A Dukaan Insurance Web Aggregator Private Limited”. The so-called debit note, which is placed on record, reveals that it does not contain the nature of taxable service per se provided by the other party to the appellant, which is the condition precedent in terms of the proviso to Rule 9(2) ibid. Hence, in the present scenario, the debit note, which is incomplete, cannot be considered as a document specified
- Further, the preponderance of probability is that the debit note is a self-serving document which was not executed (as it purports to have been) on 31.03.2017. No material is placed on record to dislodge the concurrent findings of the lower authorities that the other party did not, in fact, render any services to the Appellant, and therefore the requirements of Rule 3 of the CCR, 2004 have not been met.
- Hence, the Appellant was dismissed.
Download Case Law
