2010 (10) TMI 355 - AT - Service Tax

Refund - Business Auxiliary Services - Notification No. 41/2007-S.T. dated 6-10-2007 Notification No. 3/2008-S.T. dated 19-2-2008 and Notification No. 17/2008-ST dated 1-4-2008 - As such the Revenue s contention that service provider was registered under different category cannot be made a basis for denial of refund to the appellant - The appeal is accordingly rejected It is the appellant s contention that the transporters never raise the invoice and gives lorry receipts only which reflects upon the entire particulars - Such lorry receipts mention the exporters invoice and the corresponding shipping bills so as to co-relate their claim - denial of refund on the technical grounds is not justified - Appellant s appeal is accordingly partly allowed and partly remanded

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claim of service tax paid during a specific period.
2. Rejection of refund claim on grounds of non-compliance with notifications.
3. Dispute over the classification of services under different categories.
4. Denial of refund due to failure to produce specific invoices.
5. Time limit for claiming refund and its extension.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a refund claim of service tax amounting to Rs. 83,165 paid by the respondent during a specific quarter for services classified under different sections of the Finance Act, 1994. The claim was filed under specific notifications, but the department issued a show cause notice proposing rejection based on non-compliance with the notifications and Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

2. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected a part of the refund claim but allowed certain amounts after considering the details provided. The rejection was based on the grounds of non-compliance with specific conditions mentioned in the notifications. However, the Commissioner allowed refund for certain services falling under Custom House Agent Service as per Notification No. 17/2008-S.T.

3. The Revenue contended that the service providers were registered under a different category, which was clarified by the Board through a circular. The circular clarified that the refund should be granted for taxable services used for export without verification of the registration certificate of the service provider under specific conditions.

4. The denial of refund by the Commissioner (Appeals) based on the failure to produce specific invoices was challenged by the appellant. The denial was on technical grounds, but the appellant argued that the lorry receipts provided relevant details related to export goods, justifying the refund claim. The rejection was set aside for this part of the claim.

5. The issue of time limit for claiming refund was raised concerning a specific amount. The appellant argued that the time limit for claiming refund was extended, as clarified by the Board in a circular. The Commissioner's reasoning on the time limit was not upheld, and the matter was remanded for further adjudication on the admissibility of the refund claim based on the extended time limit.

In conclusion, the appeals were disposed of with the appellant's appeal partly allowed and partly remanded for further consideration based on the issues discussed and the clarifications provided by the Board through circulars.