2014 (8) TMI 376 - AT - Service Tax

Denial of refund claim - Notification No. 17/2009-S.T., dated 7-7-2009 - Non fullfilment of conditions of Notification - Held that - There is a minor infraction of the condition specified in the notification but that cannot be reason for denying a substantial benefit like refund of tax incidence on export of goods. I consider that the level of co-relation established by the appellant through the different documents is sufficient for granting the refund. Therefore, I set aside the impugned order and order that the impugned refund may be granted to the appellants - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues: Refund of Service Tax on courier services for export

Issue 1: Refund eligibility for courier services under Notification No. 17/2009-S.T.
The appellants, exporters of leather goods, claimed a refund of Service Tax paid on services used for export under Notification No. 17/2009-S.T. While refunds were granted for most services, the Revenue denied the refund for courier services due to non-compliance with specified conditions. The conditions required the courier receipt to include specific details like IEC code, export invoices number, and recipient details.

Issue 2: Compliance with conditions for refund
The appellants provided export invoices and courier agency invoices, meeting all requirements except the absence of the IEC code on the courier receipt. The appellants argued that their registration certificate showing the IEC number should suffice, as obtaining the IEC from the courier agency was challenging. The Revenue contended that the lack of IEC on the courier invoice breached the notification condition, justifying the denial of the refund.

Issue 3: Decision on refund eligibility
After considering both parties' arguments, the Member (T) found a minor infraction in the compliance but deemed it insufficient to deny the substantial benefit of a tax refund for export goods. The Member (T) concluded that the correlation established by the appellants through various documents was satisfactory for granting the refund. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the refund was directed to be granted to the appellants.