2014 (1) TMI 1199 - AT - Service Tax

Denial of refund claim - Notification No. 17/2009-S.T., dated 17-7-2009 - Description of the services not in line with the services as specified under the said Notification - Held that - original adjudicating authority has verified and examined the invoices raised by the service provider. Going by the definition of technical testing and analysis, as also by the definition of testing inspection and certification, he has concluded that the services provided by the service providers were covered by the said definition. Similarly, the other services are customs house agent services, Clearing and Forwarding services which are commonly known as terminal handling services, Commissioner (Appeals) has simplicitor gone by the fact that invoices/bills raised by the service provider indicate that they are engaged in providing different type of services than the one specified in the invoice. It is seen that no verification has been done by the Revenue at the service providers end so as to factually verify whether the services actually stand rendered by them or not. Once the invoices describing the type of service stand issued by the service provider and Service Tax stand paid on the same, we find no justifiable reason to deny the benefit of refund of such Service Tax to the assessee - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim of Service Tax on services utilized for export of exempted goods under Notification No. 17/2009-S.T. - Denial of refund claim on the point of limitation and incorrect description of services in invoices.

Analysis:
The case involved three appeals, two by the Revenue and one by the assessee, concerning the refund claim of Service Tax paid on services used for exporting exempted goods. The original adjudicating authority allowed the refund claim within the limitation period, considering the services provided by various providers to fall within the specified services under Notification No. 17/2009-Service Tax. The Revenue appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals), who rejected the appeals in two cases, emphasizing that the services were indeed within the specified services. The Commissioner highlighted that the Revenue's objections were unfounded since the services were related to the export of goods and the service providers had paid Service Tax on them. The Commissioner held that once Service Tax was paid, the Revenue had no right to deny the refund claim, citing various Tribunal decisions.

In another appeal, the Commissioner accepted the Revenue's appeal based on discrepancies in the invoices raised by the service provider, leading to a partial refund rejection. However, the appellate authority clarified that the part of the order rejecting a refund claim due to time-bar had become final as the assessee did not challenge it. Therefore, the present appeal focused on the refund amount challenged by the Revenue. The Appellate Tribunal, after reviewing the impugned orders, noted that the original adjudicating authority had verified the invoices and determined that the services fell within the defined categories. The Commissioner (Appeals) solely relied on discrepancies in the invoices without verifying the actual services provided by the service providers. The Tribunal emphasized that once the service provider issued invoices describing the services and paid Service Tax, there was no valid reason to deny the refund. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's two appeals and allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, granting the refund claim.

In conclusion, all three appeals were disposed of accordingly, with the Tribunal emphasizing the importance of verifying services provided against invoiced descriptions before denying refund claims based on technicalities.