2018 (2) TMI 1813 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - BL charges and IHC - denial of refund on the ground that the registration number of the service provider is not mentioned in the invoice - N/N. 41/2007, dated 6-10-2007 - Held that - The service provider has raised an invoice on the appellant showing the services namely BL Charges and IHC which has been explained by the appellant that these charges have been paid by the appellant for Bill of Lading and Inland Haulage charges. Further, in the invoice, the service tax element has been shown and appellant has paid service tax to the service provider. The refund claim cannot be rejected to the appellant under N/N. 41/20017, as the appellant has received the services for export of goods - Refund allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against denial of refund claim under Notification No. 41/2007 for Bill of Lading and Inland Haulage charges in export of goods.

Analysis:
The appellant, an exporter of goods, filed a refund claim under Notification No. 41/2007 for services received during export, specifically Bill of Lading (BL) charges and Inland Haulage charges. The Revenue denied the refund claim citing lack of explanation for BL charges and IHC in the invoice, and the absence of the service provider's registration number on the invoice. The appellant requested a decision on the merits of the issue, while the Revenue objected to the refund claim due to the missing registration number. The tribunal noted that the appellant had paid service tax on the charges, which were explained as being for Bill of Lading and Inland Haulage. The tribunal found that the service provider's invoice clearly mentioned the services and the payment of service tax, which was not disputed by the Revenue. Consequently, the tribunal held that the appellant, having received the services for export of goods, was entitled to the refund under Notification No. 41/2007. The impugned order denying the refund was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

This judgment highlights the importance of proper documentation and explanation of charges in invoices for claiming refunds under relevant notifications. It emphasizes that if the service provider's invoice clearly indicates the services provided and the payment of service tax, the absence of certain details like the registration number should not be a sole reason to deny the refund claim. The decision underscores the principle that when the service availed and the payment of service tax are not in dispute, the entitlement to claim a refund should not be unjustly rejected based on technicalities.