2015 (8) TMI 1073 - AT - Service Tax

Denial of CENVAT Credit - Courier service and CHA service - Rule 2 (l) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 - Held that - Service tax paid by the service provider under some different services (i.e. other than CHA), cannot be considered to be paid under CHA service. It is stated that the service provider wrongly paid the Service Tax under CHA, which would be covered under the category of taxable services as Business Auxiliary Service. We are unable to accept the contention of the Revenue for the reason that it is well settled that the jurisdictional Central Excise officer of the recipient of the service, cannot question the classification of the service of the service provider. It has further been stated that the Respondent had not fulfilled the condition specified in the schedule to the notification. Regarding the denial of refund on Courier service, it is stated that by the Revenue in their grounds of appeal that invoices submitted by the Respondent (issued by service provider) does not specify the Import Export Code (IEC), number of exporters, export invoice number, nature of courier. We find that the schedule to the exemption notification provides that the receipt issued by the courier agency specify the importer-exporter (IEC) code number of the exporter, export invoice number, nature of courier, destination of courier including name and address of the recipient of the courier. - Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the Respondent has submitted the copies of all shipping bills, ARE-1. The Revenue had not mentioned the non-fulfillment of the specific conditions in their grounds of appeal. So, we do not find any force in the appeals filed by the Revenue. - No reason to interfere the order of Commissioner (Appeals) - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claim rejection on CENVAT Credit of input Service Tax on Courier service and CHA service.
2. Fulfillment of conditions of Notification No.41/2007-ST for refund claims.
3. Denial of refund on Courier service due to missing details in invoices.
4. Jurisdictional Central Excise officer questioning classification of service provider's service.
5. Compliance with conditions specified in the notification for refund claims.

Analysis:
1. The case involved appeals by the Revenue against the Commissioner (Appeals) order modifying the Adjudication order regarding the refund claim filed by the Respondent for CENVAT Credit of input Service Tax on Courier service and CHA service. The Commissioner allowed the refund claim for CHA services and Courier services, leading to the Revenue's appeals.

2. The Respondents filed refund claims for Service Tax paid on services used in exporting goods under Notification No.41/2007-ST. The Adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim initially, citing non-fulfillment of conditions. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the refund claim on CHA and Courier services.

3. The Revenue contended that the Respondents failed to fulfill the conditions of the notification, relying on various decisions. However, the Tribunal found that the Revenue did not specify any irregularity in their grounds of appeal regarding non-fulfillment of notification conditions, leading to the rejection of Revenue's appeal.

4. The Revenue argued that the service tax paid under different services by the service provider cannot be considered under CHA service. The Tribunal disagreed, stating that the recipient's Central Excise officer cannot question the service provider's classification. The Revenue failed to prove non-fulfillment of notification conditions.

5. Regarding the denial of refund on Courier service due to missing details in invoices, the Tribunal found that the receipts received from the courier agency contained all necessary details as per the exemption notification. The Tribunal cited a precedent where procedural infirmities were deemed insignificant when the payment of service tax and export of goods were undisputed.

6. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) order, stating that the Respondent received services specified in the notification and used them for exporting goods without any dispute from the Revenue. The case laws cited by the Revenue were deemed inapplicable to the present case, leading to the rejection of Revenue's appeals.