2017 (5) TMI 566 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - export of services rejection on the ground that the appellant has not furnished bank reconciliation certificate and there was no one to one co-relation between input services and the output services provided - Held that - FIRC statement has already been submitted by the appellant at the time of refund claim. The Bench had directed the appellant to furnish BRC and the appellant had accordingly furnished the same on 20.01.2017. The same was furnished to the department for verification and thereafter case has been taken up for hearing today. The appellant has complied with the procedural requirement mandated by N/N. 27/2012. All the input services except fleet management services/rent-a-cab services were held to be eligible for refund in the appellant s own case 2016 (11) TMI 1352 - CESTAT HYDERABAD - the appellant is eligible for refund in respect of all services except rent-a-cab service - appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refusal of service tax refund due to lack of bank reconciliation certificate and alleged lack of correlation between input and output services.

Analysis:
1. The appellants, engaged in contract research and development for the pharmaceutical industry, exported services without paying service tax and filed refund claims. The rejection of the refund was based on the absence of a bank reconciliation certificate and the perceived lack of direct correlation between input and output services.

2. The appellant's representative, Shri G. Prahlad, detailed the services provided, the period in question, and the rejection reasons for each appeal. The appeals related to specific orders and dates, highlighting the non-submission of FIRC as per the original adjudication orders.

3. The Tribunal acknowledged that the appellant mistakenly claimed credit for fleet management services, which were ineligible for refund. However, all other services were previously deemed eligible for refund in a prior order. The appellant later submitted the required BRC as directed by the Bench, fulfilling procedural requirements.

4. The Respondent's representative, Shri Arun Kumar, reiterated the findings of the initial order but acknowledged the appellant's submission of the BRC as instructed.

5. After considering both sides' arguments, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant had now provided the necessary BRC, as directed. Following previous decisions, the Tribunal held the appellant eligible for a refund on all services except rent-a-cab services. The refund amounts were specified for each appeal, and the impugned order rejecting the refund for services other than rent-a-cab was overturned, partially allowing the appeals accordingly.