2011 (9) TMI 248 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claims for service tax paid by them used for export of finished goods - Port service and GTA service - Port service, the refund claim has been disallowed on the ground that person providing service was not authorized by the Port - Port service, the refund claim has been disallowed on the ground that person providing service was not authorized by the Port - refund of service tax paid on Port service - required to be seen that service tax has been paid by the appellant and the service received was port service or not - denial of the refund on the ground that debit note cannot be a document - denial of refund on the ground that document issued by service provider was not a prescribed document does not appear to be supported by the relevant rule 4A - apply Rule 4A of Service Tax Rules, 1994 and Rule 9(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and examine the eligibility of CENVAT Credit of service tax paid and refund - details given by the appellant as regards proof of payment of service tax are sufficient and the original adjudicating authority can get it verified in case of doubt - appellant was required to produce self certified copies of documents which they have failed to do, it is a curable defect and the appellant could have been asked to cure the defect - refund claim in respect of Port service is allowed - refund claim in respect of transport service is remanded back to original adjudicating authority to decide the issue.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claims for service tax paid on exported goods; Disallowance of refund on Port service and GTA service grounds; Validity of debit note as a document for refund; Compliance with Service Tax Rules and CENVAT Credit Rules.

Analysis:
The judgment addresses two appeals against order-in-appeals with the same issue, leading to a joint decision. The appellant sought refunds for service tax paid on exported packaged tea, specifically for Port service and GTA service. The refund for Port service was rejected due to the service provider not being authorized by the Port. However, precedent Tribunal decisions emphasize that the focus should be on whether service tax was paid and if the service received was indeed Port service, not on the service provider's authorization. The judgment cites Dishman Pharma & Chemicals Ltd and Ramdev Food Products Pvt.Ltd. as supporting decisions.

Regarding the denial of refund for GTA service based on the debit note's validity, the judgment delves into the legalities. It highlights that the denial of refund due to the nature of the document contradicts Rule 4A of Service Tax Rules, 1994, which broadens the definition of acceptable documents. Rule 9(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 is also invoked, allowing flexibility in accepting documents with certain deficiencies. The original adjudicating authority failed to apply these rules properly, as pointed out by the appellant's counsel, who provided detailed statements and proof of payment. The judgment criticizes the lower authorities for not verifying the provided details adequately and for rejecting the claim based on minor issues like missing self-certified copies.

Consequently, the judgment allows the refund claim for Port service and remands the GTA service refund claim back to the original adjudicating authority for a fair assessment based on the observations made. It stresses the importance of adhering to the facts and statutes while deciding on refund claims, emphasizing the need for proper verification and consideration of all relevant details before rejecting a claim.