2014 (12) TMI 1234 - AT - Service Tax

Rejection of refund claim - SEZ unit - Refund claim rejected on 3 issues, (1) deficiency in invoices (2) the objection that the impugned service is not mentioned in the authorisation issued by the Unit Approval Committee of the SEZ unit (3) that the assessee has not provided basis for payment of service tax along with the evidence of tax payment for which the refund is being claimed. Held that - with respect to deficiency noted in the invoice, it is observed that the said invoices are issued by the vendor located outside India, who is not required to follow the procedure prescribed under the Service Tax Rules, 1994. Mere technical discrepancies in the invoices cannot be the ground for denying substantive benefit of refund available to an SEZ unit. It is the policy of the Government to exempt or refund the input taxes incurred by the SEZ Unit. Keeping this policy of the Government in mind and specifically in the light of sections 7 and section 51 of the SEZ Act, 2005, denial of refund claim on this ground is not sustainable. With respect to the second objection, it is found that the Appellant has produced the authorisation dated 05 October 2009 in which at serial no. 27 Business Support Service is specifically mentioned. It is also found from the GAR 7 challan enclosed to the Appeal that service tax was paid by the Appellant under the accounting code 00440366 which is the accounting code for depositing service tax under Business Support Service category. When the Revenue has accepted service tax payment made by the Appellant under the accounting code of Business Support Service, and when the Business Support Service is included in the authorisation dated 05 October 2009 granted by the Unit Approval Committee, the objection on this count is also not tenable. With regard to the third objection of reconciliation of service tax payment with evidence of challans, it is found that the same was produced before the lower authority and also before me and the same is satisfactory. - Decided in favour of appellant with consequential relief

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of refund claims for two periods based on invoices from overseas entity.
2. Deficiency in invoices, service not approved by Unit Approval Committee, lack of evidence for service tax payment.

Analysis:
1. The Appellant appealed against the rejection of refund claims for two periods due to defective invoices from their overseas entity. The Counsel argued that the invoices did not indicate the service category or were signed, but the Revenue had previously accepted service tax payments under Business Support Services without challenge. The Counsel cited legal principles and judicial precedents to support the Appellant's position that once a service classification is accepted for tax purposes, it cannot be disputed during refund processing. The authorisation from the Unit Approval Committee also listed Business Support Services as eligible for SEZ operations, further strengthening the Appellant's case.

2. The Revenue contended that the documents provided did not clarify the nature of services claimed for a refund. However, the Tribunal found that technical discrepancies in overseas vendor invoices should not hinder SEZ units from receiving refund benefits. Citing the Government's policy to exempt or refund input taxes for SEZs, the Tribunal emphasized that minor invoice issues should not deny substantive refund entitlements. Regarding the objection of service approval by the Unit Approval Committee, the Tribunal noted that the authorisation and service tax payments under the Business Support Service code validated the Appellant's claim. The evidence of service tax payment reconciliation with challans was deemed satisfactory, leading to the Tribunal allowing the appeals and granting consequential relief as per the law.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal arguments, precedents, and decision rationale, providing a detailed understanding of the case's outcome and implications.