2017 (5) TMI 184 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - export of rice - N/N. 41/2007-ST - denial on the ground of lack of supporting evidence and co-relation of document submitted by the appellant - Held that - There is no rejection based on any legal issue and it is found that the appellants have submitted a chart containing details like invoice number, date, shipping bill number, load port details, description of goods, service providers details, tax paid etc - the rejection of refund claims appears to be made on a summary basis. Admittedly, invoices do contain basic particulars and co-relation as per the chart furnished by the appellant should be sufficient to consider their claim - procedural infractions cannot take away the substantive benefit in cases where export of goods is established. The lower authorities did not examine all the supporting documents submitted by the appellant. It is to be noted here that the decided cases dealing similar set of facts and Board s clarifications were also to be considered before deciding on the eligibility of the appellant for the claims - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claims rejection based on lack of supporting evidence and co-relation of documents. Examination of specific statutory conditions for refund claims. Rejection of refund claim for technical testing services due to absence of written agreements.

Analysis:
The appeal challenged the rejection of refund claims by the Original Authority, upheld mainly due to lack of supporting evidence and co-relation of documents. The Commissioner (Appeals) directed the Adjudicating Authority to reconsider the claims, emphasizing the necessity of examining necessary documents and evidence produced by the appellants. The appellant, engaged solely in rice export, submitted claims within the stipulated time with required supporting documents. The rejection was not on legal grounds but due to procedural issues. The Tribunal noted that the invoices contained relevant particulars as per Notification 41/2007-ST requirements, and the rejection seemed summary-based. The Tribunal referred to various circulars emphasizing the methodology for examining refund claims and concluded that procedural infractions should not negate substantive benefits if export of goods is established.

Regarding the specific service headings, the Tribunal upheld the rejection of refund claims. The Tribunal cited various Tribunal decisions supporting claims under Notification No.41/2007-ST. The High Court's strict interpretation of notification conditions for compliance was noted, emphasizing the need for checks and balances in processing exemption applications. The Tribunal found that the supporting documents submitted by the appellants were not examined for specific statutory conditions vital to the claim. The rejection of refund claim for technical testing services due to lack of written agreements was also addressed. The Tribunal found that the appellant had supporting documents for the testing services, requiring examination for eligibility for refund claims.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Original Authority for reconsideration of the appellant's claims. The lower authorities were directed to examine all supporting documents submitted by the appellant, considering similar cases and Board's clarifications before deciding on the eligibility of the appellant for the claims. The appeal was allowed by way of remand, emphasizing the detailed examination of documents for a final finding.