2013 (7) TMI 664 - AT - Service Tax

Rejection of refund claim assessee was engaged in the manufacture and export of PF Resin, FF Resin and Hardner - Held that - In absence of any amount shown on the transportation charges against the GTA service assessee would not eligible for refund - under Notification No. 17/2009 dated 07.07.2009 the assessee can claim the refund of service tax paid of transport of goods from place of removal to inland container depot or port or airport - the invoices bills submitted by the various service provider show the various amounts against the various entries mentioned in the invoice but nothing on transportation appeal decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues: Refund claim under Notification No. 17/2009-ST dated 07.07.2009 for transportation charges.

In this case, M/s Forace Polymers Pvt. Ltd. filed a refund claim of Rs. 71,447 under Notification No. 17/2009-ST dated 07.07.2009 for service tax paid on specified services used for exporting goods. The appeal specifically challenges the rejection of refund amounting to Rs. 14,825 related to transportation charges of the goods. The original authority rejected the claim as the transportation charges were paid under the category of Business Auxiliary Service without reflecting the Service Tax on the invoice. The Commissioner (Appeal) upheld this decision, leading to the current appeal.

The main contention revolves around the interpretation of Notification No. 17/2009-ST dated 07.07.2009, allowing exporters to claim a refund for service tax paid on the transport of goods to designated locations. The appellant failed to provide documentation indicating the specific amount paid for transportation under the GTA service, as required by the notification. Both the original authority and the Commissioner (Appeal) found no evidence of transportation charges against the GTA service in the invoices submitted. Consequently, the appellate tribunal upheld the rejection of the refund claim, citing the absence of information on transportation charges as a key factor in denying the appeal.

The appellate tribunal, after hearing both sides, focused on the crucial aspect of compliance with the provisions of Notification No. 17/2009-ST dated 07.07.2009. The tribunal noted that the appellant's documentation did not clearly show the amount paid for transportation under the GTA service, a specified service for refund under the notification. As the invoices submitted lacked details on transportation charges, the tribunal found no error in the decision of the Commissioner (Appeal) to reject the refund claim. Consequently, the tribunal upheld the rejection and dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of providing accurate and complete documentation to support refund claims under the specified notification.