2014 (7) TMI 371 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of tax paid on input services used in export goods - GTA Service tax - notification no.17/2009-ST dt. 07.07.2009 - Rejection of refund claim - Violation of conditions 2(i)(B), 2(i)(F) of notification no.17/2009-ST - Held that - It is observed that the appellant had not complied with mandatory conditions 2(i)(B) and 2(i)(F) of the notification no.17/2009-ST as well as other conditions mentioned against GTA Service and CHA service of the said notification. I also find that Business Auxiliary / Support services were not covered by any entry in the said notification for the purpose of refund. The entire admissibility of refund claim is based on the procedural requirements and submission of reconciliation of documents under Notification No.17/2009-ST. As appellant has failed to fulfill the procedural requirement, therefore, refund was correctly denied. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim under notification no.17/2009-ST for services used in export of goods.

Analysis:
The appellant, a merchant exporter, filed a refund claim for service tax paid on GTA Service under notification no.17/2009-ST for the quarter April 2010 to June 2010. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the claim citing non-fulfillment of mandatory conditions 2(i)(B) and 2(i)(F) of the notification, along with services not covered by the notification. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection, emphasizing the non-compliance with mandatory conditions. The appellant contended that conditions 2(i)(B) and 2(i)(F) were not mandatory and that the services were used in exporting goods. The Revenue argued discrepancies in the claim and non-compliance with conditions for specific services under the notification.

The appellant failed to appear on multiple hearing dates, and it was noted that they did not comply with the mandatory conditions of the notification, including 2(i)(B) and 2(i)(F), and other conditions for GTA Service and CHA service. Business Auxiliary / Support services claimed for refund were not covered under the notification. The admissibility of the refund claim depended on meeting procedural requirements and submitting reconciliation of documents under the notification. As the appellant did not fulfill the procedural requirements, the refund was rightfully denied.

In conclusion, the appeal was rejected based on the appellant's failure to comply with mandatory conditions under notification no.17/2009-ST and not meeting procedural requirements for the refund claim. The denial was upheld due to non-compliance with specified conditions and services not covered by the notification, leading to the rejection of the appeal.