2016 (6) TMI 1013 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim on the services, namely, CHA service and courier service - failure to fulfill the conditions prescribed in the Notification No. 17/2009-ST dated 7.7.2009 - Held that - As the appellant has been able to establish correlation between the service provider s invoice and exporter from the invoices and shipping bills, in that circumstance, the appellant is entitled for refund claim in respect of CHA service. Regarding courier service, the objection is only that in the invoices issued by the courier agency service, export invoice number & IEC code of the appellant are not mentioned. There is no dispute that the details of the appellant/exporter as also description of goods are mentioned in these invoices. Refund allowed in both the cases - Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection on CHA service and courier service under Notification No. 17/2009-ST dated 7.7.2009 due to non-compliance.

Analysis:
1. CHA Service Issue:
The appellant's refund claim on CHA service was initially denied because the name of the CHA in the shipping bills differed from the actual service provider, and the correlation between the service provider's invoice and export was not established. However, the Tribunal's decision in the case of Sopariwala Exports Vs. CST, Mumbai held that the export consignment and the service provided could be verified and co-related through documents like Shipping Bill number, Invoice Number, Container Number, etc. Consequently, the appellant was deemed entitled to the refund claim as the correlation was established between the service provider's invoice and the exporter from the invoices and shipping bills.

2. Courier Service Issue:
Regarding the courier service, the refund claim was initially denied because the courier agency did not mention the IEC code number of the exporter on the invoices. However, the Tribunal's decision in the case of Amar International vs. CST, Mumbai observed that despite the absence of the IEC code number on the invoices, the appellant was eligible for a refund of the service tax paid on the courier service. The objection was considered a procedural infirmity, and since there was no dispute about the service tax payment and eligibility, the appellant was entitled to the refund claim. The Tribunal's examination led to the allowance of the refund on the courier service.

3. Conclusion:
After thorough consideration of the issues, the Tribunal allowed the refund claim on both the courier service and CHA service under Notification No. 17/2009-ST dated 7.7.2009. The impugned order rejecting the refund claim was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief. The decision was made based on the established correlation between the service provider's invoice and the exporter for both services, as highlighted in the Tribunal's previous judgments.