2011 (4) TMI 278 - AT - Central Excise

Refund - The refund claim was rejected on the ground that the appellants failed to submit the proof of authorisation in respect of port services and the claim did not contain the requirements under Notification No. 3/2008-ST dated 19.02.2008 - Held that documents required under Notification No. 03/2008-ST, as amended from time to time were submitted and had the required details. This will necessarily prove the fulfilment of conditions or otherwise for availing the refund - Decided in favour of the assessee by way to remand to original authority

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection for service tax paid on port services, CHA services, and transport of goods; compliance with Notification No. 3/2008-ST; rejection of refund for transport of goods by road due to lack of details in invoices; appeal against rejection of refund for transport services.

Analysis:
The case involved a refund claim by M/s. Riddhi Siddhi Gluco Biols Limited for service tax paid on port services, CHA services, and transport of goods. The original adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim citing non-submission of proof of authorization for port services and non-compliance with Notification No. 3/2008-ST. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeal) allowed the refund for port and CHA services but rejected the claim for transport of goods under Section 65(105)(ZZP). The rejection was based on the lack of details in the transporters' invoices as required by the notification. The Commissioner found discrepancies in the invoices submitted by the appellants, noting that they were issued by the service provider without the appellant's details and lacked essential export information.

The advocate representing the appellants argued that the export invoices contained all necessary details, including customer names, goods' place of removal, and container details, which matched the submitted documents. It was contended that the goods were transported by an agency, and the service tax refund for transport services should be granted. The appellants claimed entitlement to cenvat credit and cash refund under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules for the service tax paid by the service providers.

In the judgment, Dr. P. Babu acknowledged the appellants' contentions, noting that the documents submitted met the requirements of Notification No. 3/2008-ST. The judge emphasized the importance of verifying the submitted documents to ensure compliance with refund conditions and the absence of irregularities or deficiencies. Consequently, the case was remanded to the original adjudicating authority for further verification of documents and compliance with the notification's conditions. The decision highlighted the need for thorough verification before processing the refund claim to ascertain fulfillment of conditions and avoid any irregularities.