2013 (4) TMI 401 - AT - Service Tax

Refund application rejected - service tax charged by the service provider for the export of consignments - as per dept. claim is beyond the period of limitation, and Non co-relation of the consignments with the GTA services - Held that - On a random sample picked up it is found that the transport company s Lorry Receipt mentions the container number and the said container number finds mention in the transporters invoice number, and both the documents also indicate the export invoice number of the appellant. If these are co-related with ERE-1, it is found that the ERE-1 also indicate the container number on the reverse wherein the Revenue officers have cleared the consignment for export purposes. Thus, this co-relation should have been properly explained by the appellants to the lower authorities which has not been done so, thus issue needs reconsideration The appellants were registered with Export Promotion Council subsequent to the exports affected by them, thus there cannot be any dispute on the ground that the goods were exported by the appellant company, though the subsequent registration does not turn the exports made by the appellant into non exports. In the absence of any other evidence against the appellant, subsequent registration by the appellant with the Export Promotion Council should not be a reason for rejecting the refund claims of the appellant - direct the adjudicating authority to reconsider the refund claims.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Rejection of refund application for service tax charged by the service provider for export of consignments based on grounds of limitation and non-co-relation of consignments with GTA services.

Analysis:

The judgment by Mr. M.V. Ravindaran of the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad pertains to an appeal against the rejection of a refund application for service tax charged by the service provider for exporting consignments. The primary issues in question were the limitation period and the co-relation of consignments with GTA services. The Tribunal noted that the refund claim for GTA service was denied by the first appellate authority due to a lack of co-relation between the transport companies' invoices and the exported consignments. However, upon reviewing a random sample, it was found that the container numbers on the Lorry Receipts matched those on the transporters' invoices and also appeared on the ERE-1 document used for export clearance. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant should have explained this co-relation to the lower authorities, which was not adequately done. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the adjudicating authority to reconsider the refund claims, highlighting the need for a proper explanation of the co-relation between documents.

Moreover, the judgment addressed the second ground for rejecting the refund claim, which was the appellant's registration with the Export Promotion Council subsequent to the exports. The Tribunal clarified that despite the subsequent registration, there was no dispute that the goods were indeed exported by the appellant, and the delayed registration did not invalidate the exports. It was emphasized that the subsequent registration should not be a basis for rejecting the refund claims in the absence of any other evidence against the appellant. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeals by way of remand, instructing the adjudicating authority to reevaluate the refund claims while ensuring the principles of natural justice are followed throughout the process.