2012 (11) TMI 402 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of Service Tax under the category of CHA services, Courier services, Banking and Finance services etc Held that - Cross references on the invoices is a curable defect and can be corrected subsequently at any given point of time. first appellate authority has not denied the fact that the said services were rendered by the service providers towards the export of goods. The defects which are pointed out by the first appellate authority as well as by the adjudicating authority are curable and are cured subsequently by the appellants and service providers. As regards the service tax paid by the appellant on Banking and Financial services, it is not in dispute that the said Banking and Financial services were utilised by the appellant towards the Banking charges involved in the export of goods. If that be so, refund claims of the appellants as this point cannot be rejected - appellants are eligible for the refund of amount of service tax paid by the service providers on various services, for which they have filed the refund claims - impugned orders are liable to be set-aside and appeals are allowed with consequential relief to the appellants.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claims for service tax paid on CHA services, Courier services, Banking and Finance services; rejection of refund claims by adjudicating authority on grounds of unjust enrichment and lack of correlation to exports; correction of invoices by service providers; eligibility of refund for certain services as per Notification No.41/2007-ST; non-mentioning of Shipping Bill numbers/Bill of Lading numbers on invoices; service tax paid on Banking and Financial services without findings by lower authorities.

Analysis:
The appeals before the Appellate Tribunal involved refund claims for service tax paid by the appellants to service providers for various services such as CHA services, Courier services, Banking and Finance services. The adjudicating authority rejected the refund claims citing unjust enrichment and lack of correlation to exports based on the documents provided. The first appellate authority favored the appellants on unjust enrichment but upheld the rejection due to invoices not correlating with services provided. However, corrections were made to the invoices by the service providers, which was a point of contention.

The first appellate authority emphasized that the conditions and requirements under Notification No.41/2007-ST are mandatory to prevent revenue leakage and fraud. It noted that certain services claimed for refund were not specified under the notification, and details like Shipping Bill numbers and export descriptions were crucial for eligibility. The authority stressed that deficiencies in invoices cannot be rectified later and must be included at the time of billing.

In a significant reference to prior decisions, the Tribunal highlighted cases where refund for services like THC, DOC charges, Haulage charges, and Courier charges were deemed eligible. The Tribunal concluded that the appellants were entitled to the refund of service tax paid based on these precedents, despite the issues raised by the lower authorities regarding the invoices.

Regarding the non-mentioning of Shipping Bill numbers and Bill of Lading numbers on invoices, the Tribunal referred to a case where such defects were considered curable and could be rectified subsequently. It was noted that the services were indeed provided for export purposes, and the defects in the invoices were correctable, leading to the allowance of the refund claims.

On the matter of service tax paid on Banking and Financial services, the Tribunal observed that the lower authorities did not provide any findings. However, considering that these services were utilized for banking charges related to exports, the Tribunal deemed the refund claims valid, ultimately setting aside the impugned orders and allowing the appeals with consequential relief to the appellants.