2015 (5) TMI 954 - AT - Service Tax

Denial of refund claim - service tax paid in respect of CHA service - Claim was rejected on the ground that invoices of the CHA did not contain the Shipping Bill number & date, description of goods exported and number & date of invoice issued by exporter - Held that - ervice should have been received in respect of the Shipping Bill and the exporter should be able to show it to be so. In this case, the only ground on which benefit of refund has been rejected is invoice issued by CHA did not have the necessary details. This ground cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the benefit of refund of service tax paid in respect of CHA service has to be allowed. GTA Service - Held that - appellants have admitted before the Commissioner that they have no evidence to show link of GTA service with export documents. However, the appellants have sought another opportunity to produce the documents and evidence before the original authority. In any case, the matter has to be remanded to the original adjudicating authority and therefore, there is no harm in allowing the appellants to make another attempt to convince the original adjudicating authority. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Eligibility of the appellant for service tax paid in respect of CHA service.
2. Eligibility of the appellant for service tax paid in respect of GTA service.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The first issue pertains to the eligibility of the appellant for service tax paid in respect of CHA service. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the appellants had submitted a detailed tabulated statement for service tax refund claimed for each Shipping Bill. However, the claim was rejected on the basis that the invoices of the CHA did not contain essential details such as the Shipping Bill number, description of goods exported, and invoice details. The appellants argued that the invoices they provided contained all necessary information and that the service was indeed received in relation to the Shipping Bill. The Tribunal found that the rejection solely based on the lack of details in the CHA invoices was not sustainable. Consequently, the benefit of refund for service tax paid in relation to CHA service was deemed allowable.

Issue 2:
Regarding the eligibility of the appellant for service tax paid in respect of GTA service, it was acknowledged that the appellants admitted to lacking evidence linking the GTA service to export documents. However, the appellants expressed a desire for another opportunity to present the required documentation to the original adjudicating authority. The Tribunal decided to remand the matter to the original authority, allowing the appellants the chance to provide additional evidence. The impugned order was set aside, and the original authority was directed to verify the documents submitted afresh. Therefore, the Tribunal disposed of both appeals by remanding the matter for further consideration.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment addressed the issues of eligibility for service tax refund related to CHA and GTA services, emphasizing the importance of providing necessary details and evidence to support the claims. The decision highlighted the need for proper documentation and allowed the appellants an opportunity to substantiate their claims before the original adjudicating authority.