2012 (6) TMI 331 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim of service tax paid on GTA services rejected - export under Notification No.41/2007-ST rejected as the consignment note did not contain the details of export invoice and container number etc. and on the LR these details were written by the staff of the appellant company and not by the issuer of the LR - Held that - The invoice issued by the transporters contains all the details and from the records it appears that the transporters are following a practice of issuing the LRs which is for the purpose of transportation only and the invoice issued which is in reality, a consignment note and also is a document for the purpose of transaction between the transporter and the appellant - Since LR and the invoice issued together contain all the details the fact that in the LR certain details have been written by the appellant s staff should not be treated as manipulation and consequently the refund claim is to be allowed - in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim of service tax paid on GTA services for export under Notification No.41/2007-ST rejected due to missing details on consignment note; Manipulation of LR by company's employees; Whether invoice issued by transporters can be considered as a consignment note; Consistency in allowing refund claims for subsequent periods.

Analysis:
The judgment involves two appeals against two orders-in-appeal, where the issue at hand is the rejection of refund claims of service tax paid on GTA services utilized for export under Notification No.41/2007-ST. The primary reason for rejection was the absence of essential details on the consignment note, specifically the export invoice and container number, which were noted by the appellant's staff on the LR instead of the LR issuer. The appellant argued that the LR issued by transporters is primarily for goods transportation and contains the container number, while a separate invoice with all necessary details is also provided. This invoice, according to the appellant, should be considered as a consignment note supported by the LR. Additionally, the appellant highlighted that refund claims for subsequent periods were approved by the department, indicating a lack of objection to the refund eligibility for GTA services, with objections limited to specific claims related to the transportation of empty containers only.

Upon hearing both parties and examining the records, the judge found that the invoice issued by the transporters indeed contained all required details. It was observed that the transporters followed a practice of issuing LRs for transportation purposes only, with the invoice serving as the actual consignment note and a transaction document between the transporter and the appellant. Given that both the LR and the invoice together contained all necessary details as per departmental requirements, the judge concluded that the staff notes on the LR should not be considered manipulation. Moreover, considering the consistency in allowing refund claims for subsequent periods by the department, the judge ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the appeals and granting consequential relief.

In summary, the judgment addressed the issue of refund claims for service tax paid on GTA services for export, emphasizing the adequacy of details on the invoice issued by transporters, the nature of LR as primarily for transportation, and the consistency in refund approvals for subsequent periods. The decision favored the appellant, highlighting the sufficiency of information provided and the lack of manipulation in the LR notes by the company's employees.