2010 (12) TMI 187 - AT - Service Tax

GTA services - rebate of Service Tax and cess paid on input service used for export of taxable service - refund claim is made was also wrong ground - appellant submitted in the application that they had exported Goods Transport Services and claimed refund whereas in reality they had exported excisable goods and they were claiming refund of Service Tax paid on GTA services - substantive right cannot be denied on the ground that covering letter of the refund claim was wrong - rectifiable error Appeal alolwed

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of rebate claims under Rule 5 of Export of Service Rules 2005.
2. Appeal rejection by Commissioner (Appeals).
3. Filing of refund claim in the wrong form.
4. Discrepancy in the details of the exported services.
5. Consideration of documents for the refund claim.
6. Rectifiability of clerical errors in refund claims.

Analysis:
1. The appellants filed rebate claims under Rule 5 of Export of Service Rules 2005, seeking rebate of Service Tax and cess paid on input service used for exporting taxable service, specifically Goods Transport Service. The claims were rejected by the Assistant Commissioner on the basis that there was no actual export of service involved, as the Service Tax paid for GTA services was considered an input service. The plea to seek rebate under a different notification was also dismissed.

2. An appeal was made to the Commissioner (Appeals) against the rejection of the rebate claims, which was subsequently denied.

3. The advocate representing the appellants admitted the mistake of filing the refund claim in the wrong form. He relied on previous tribunal and apex court decisions to argue that forms are meant to facilitate, not hinder, the process of claiming refunds.

4. The original application for refund was indeed filed in the wrong form, and the grounds for the claim were also incorrect. While the appellants claimed to have exported Goods Transport Services, they had actually exported excisable goods and sought a refund of Service Tax paid on GTA services. Despite the discrepancies, all relevant documents supporting the claim were submitted along with the application.

5. The Tribunal noted that all necessary documents were enclosed with the refund claim, and a review of these documents would have clarified the nature of the refund being claimed. The Tribunal also acknowledged that during the relevant period, no specific proforma was prescribed for filing refund claims, and only a letter with relevant details was required. The Tribunal considered the incorrect statement to be a clerical error that did not justify denying the substantive right to a refund.

6. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal. However, since the claim was not assessed on its merits, the case was remanded to the original adjudicating authority to verify the eligibility of the claim, the accuracy of the documents submitted, and the amount claimed. The Tribunal emphasized the rectifiability of clerical errors in refund claims and the applicability of previous legal decisions cited by the advocate.