2013 (9) TMI 144 - AT - Service Tax

Refund on Invoices issued - Whether the appellant is eligible for the refund when invoices issued by Courier do not show IEC No. of service receiver which is a requirement in the notification Appellant relying on RAMDEV FOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. V/s CCE, AHMEDABAD (2011 (3) TMI 1256 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD (Tri.-Kolkatta) Held that - appellant is eligible for the refund - on the date of filling claims, the requirement of notification is satisfied. Refund on exports - Whether the appellant is eligible for the refund in respect of exports made prior to the date on which service was included in the notification or not Held that - This is a rectifiable defect and the matter was remanded - appellant should have been given another opportunity - both the orders and appeals are set aside appeal decided in the favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Eligibility for refund when invoices by Courier do not show IEC No. of service receiver.
2. Eligibility for refund for exports made before service was included in the notification.

Analysis:
1. The first issue pertains to the admissibility of refund when the Courier agency did not indicate the IEC No. of the service receiver on the invoices. The tribunal considered a similar case of Ramdev Food Products Pvt. Ltd. where it was held that such a defect is rectifiable, especially considering the confusion during the initial period. The period in question in this case is from October 2008 to March 2009. Thus, the appellant is granted another opportunity to rectify the defect in the invoice, and the matter is remanded for further consideration.

2. Moving on to the second issue, the focus is on the eligibility for refund concerning exports made before the service was included in the notification. The tribunal referred to the case of East India Minerals Ltd., where it was established that the refund claim of service tax should be allowed if the notification requirements are met at the time of filing claims, irrespective of the date of export. The tribunal also noted that a similar decision was previously allowed by the Commissioner (A) but was not followed in the impugned order. As the issue is clearly covered by the tribunal's decision, it is held that the appellant is indeed eligible for the refund.

3. In conclusion, the tribunal set aside both impugned orders and appeals, remanding the matter to the original adjudicating authority for a fresh decision in line with the views expressed in the judgment. The appellant is granted another opportunity concerning the courier service issue, emphasizing the need for rectification and compliance with the notification requirements for refund eligibility.