2011 (11) TMI 272 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of Service Tax paid on GTA service granted vide two separate orders Revenue made a single appeal against the said two orders Revenue contention that invoice issued by service provider did not contain its registration number and Assisstant Commissioner had not verified whether the Service Tax has been paid or not Held that - In respect of each order, a separate appeal is required to be filed. There is no justification for filing a single appeal. As regards verification of payment of Service Tax, once the Assistant Commissioner records a finding that refund is payable, then he has verified whatever is required to be verified, it is for the person who makes such contradictory claim to prove that the original adjudicating authority had failed in his duty. Further, when the service recipient pays the tax, it is quite possible that the service provider may not be registered. Obviously, he cannot provide registration number. Thus, assessee is eligible for refund and on technical ground without showing that payment was not made, refund cannot be rejected. - Decided against the Revenue.

Summary

Issues involved: Eligibility for refund of Service Tax paid on GTA service availed and utilized for export of goods under Notification No.41/2007-ST, appeal against the sanction of refunds, verification of payment of Service Tax, format of appeal, separate appeals for each order, justification for filing a single appeal, documents not containing details.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the eligibility of the respondent for a refund of Service Tax paid on GTA services used for exporting goods under Notification No.41/2007-ST. The original adjudicating authority sanctioned two refund orders, which the Revenue appealed against. The appeal was based on the absence of the service provider's registration number on the invoice and the lack of verification by the Assistant Commissioner regarding the payment of Service Tax. The Commissioner (Appeals) considered the appeal against one order only, leading to the Revenue's appeal against this decision.

The Department reiterated the grounds of appeal, emphasizing that since both refund orders were issued by the same Assistant Commissioner and involved the same issue, one appeal should have sufficed. However, the Tribunal referenced a previous case where it was established that using a wrong format for an appeal does not warrant dismissal. The Tribunal also highlighted that separate appeals are required for each order, as per Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994. In this case, distinct numbers were assigned to both orders, indicating the necessity of separate appeals.

Regarding the verification of Service Tax payment, the Commissioner (Appeals) noted that the Revenue failed to demonstrate any error in the Assistant Commissioner's finding that the appellant was eligible for the refund. The Tribunal emphasized that if the Revenue doubted the payment of Service Tax, they should have verified it before filing an appeal. The absence of a specific finding by the original adjudicating authority on this matter was deemed insufficient grounds for rejection. Additionally, the Tribunal reasoned that if the Service Tax was paid by the recipient, the lack of the service provider's registration number should not impede the refund process.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeal and rejected it, emphasizing the importance of proper verification before challenging refund eligibility based on technical grounds.