2015 (11) TMI 1354 - AT - Service Tax

Denial of refund claim - export of services - Invoices were raised in the name of division of the assessee - contravention of the condition of Notification No. 17/2009-ST - invoices against which refund was claimed are not in the name of respondent company - Held that - Even though the service invoices of barge issued in favour of the division and the payment made by that division and transaction bills to the respondent company only and there is no any other entity therefore it can not be said that division and the company have separate status. When once the Appellant has clarified that M/s. Greater Ferromet is their Division and has given legal proof for the same the refund claim cannot be denied. Department has also not been able to dispute that M/s. Greater Ferromet is not a division of the Appellant. In such circumstances rejection of the claim does not stand to reason. Refund has to be granted to the Appellant. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Dispute over refund of export service under Notification No. 17/2009-ST due to service bills raised in the name of a division of the company, not the company itself.
2. Whether refund claims based on invoices issued in the name of a division but paid by the division are admissible.

Analysis:
1. The appeals were against Orders-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Goa. The issue revolved around export service providers raising service bills in the name of a division of the company, while exports were made by the company itself. The Revenue contended that since bills were not in favor of the division, the refund could not be granted to the company. The Revenue argued that payments were made by the division, not the company, thus refund on such invoices should not be allowed. The Commissioner (Appeals) partially allowed the appeals of the respondents, leading to a dispute.

2. The respondent's counsel argued that the division was not a separate entity but part of the company, supported by various documents like PAN Card and Certificate of Incorporation. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the division and the company did not have separate legal status, as evidenced by the lack of separate registration for the division. The Commissioner held that the refund should be granted to the company, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. The department's objection regarding missing original invoices was upheld, emphasizing the need for proper documentation. The judgment highlighted that the refund must be given to the legal entity, the company, not the division. The Commissioner's decision to allow the refund was upheld, dismissing the Revenue's appeals.

In conclusion, the judgment clarified the legal status of a division within a company regarding refund claims and emphasized the importance of proper documentation for processing claims. The decision favored granting the refund to the company, considering the division as part of the legal entity. The judgment upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision and dismissed the Revenue's appeals.