2015 (9) TMI 838 - AT - Service Tax

Denial of refund claim - Notification No.17/09-ST dt.7.7.2009 - CHA services - Held that - As regards incomplete invoices/bills etc., rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 prescribes the statutory requirement. Compliance of this rule requires that the invoices/challan/bills should be complete in all respect. Therefore, the exporter claiming refund of service tax under notification No.41/2007-ST should ensure in their own interest that invoices/bills/challan should contain requisite details. Refund claim cannot be allowed on the basis of invoices not having complete details as required verification cannot be carried out by the department on the basis of incomplete invoices. Invoices issued by the service provider have been mentioned services which have been provided by the service provider in detail and detail regarding the services received by the appellant are mentioned in the invoices. It is also not disputed that the appellant has received the services and paid service tax thereon. In the circumstances, relying upon the above said decisions, I hold that the appellant is entitled for the refund claim. - Impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claims rejection under Notification No.17/09-ST dt.7.7.2009 for service tax paid on specified services used for export.

Analysis:
1. The appellants, manufacturers of steel utensils and exporters, filed refund claims for service tax paid under Notification No.17/09-ST dt.7.7.2009. The claims were based on credit taken on input services from registered CHA service providers. Revenue rejected the claims citing improper invoices for reimbursable expenses, leading to denial of refund by lower authorities.

2. Appellant's counsel argued that despite CHA registration, services were used for export, and service tax was paid, making them eligible for refund. Referring to CBEC Circular No.106/9/2008-ST, counsel emphasized the payment of service tax and reliance on judicial precedents supporting refund eligibility based on service usage for export.

3. The Revenue contended that services were classified as agency services, and incomplete invoices from CHA providers hindered verification, thus denying refund. The circular highlighted the need for complete invoice details for refund verification, which were lacking in this case, leading to inadmissibility of the refund claim.

4. The Tribunal analyzed CBEC's circular, emphasizing the exporter's actual payment of service tax and service receipt as key criteria for refund eligibility, regardless of the service provider's registration category. Previous judgments, like Durhan Spintex & Holding Pvt. Ltd., Dishman Pharma & Chemicals Ltd., Indoworth (India) Ltd., and Sunflag Iron & Steel Co. Ltd., supported refund entitlement based on service tax payment and service usage for export.

5. Referring to these precedents, the Tribunal upheld the appellant's refund claim, emphasizing the payment of service tax, service receipt, and proper invoice details as crucial factors for admissibility. The impugned orders were set aside, allowing the appeals with consequential relief, in favor of the appellant.