2017 (7) TMI 847 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - GTA services - N/N. 41/2007-ST - rejection on the ground that description of taxable service was not correctly mentioned in the form prescribed in the notification - Held that - these are remediable defects which the ld. adjudicating authority has to examine in the spirit of the Notification No. 41/2007 and keeping in mind the Board Circular No. 112/6/2009-ST dt. 12.03.2009. Hence, the matter needs to re-examined by the adjudicating authority - matter on remand. Refund claim rejected also on the ground that they have claimed drawback and thus violated the provision of proviso (e) of the Notification - Held that - the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has gone purely by presumption and not by fact. Reasoning given by the adjudicating authority in this regard also presumes inclusion of the said portion of Service Tax. Hence, this aspect also needs to re-examined by the adjudicating authority. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of refund claim on grounds of clerical errors and lack of documentation.
2. Rejection of refund claim due to alleged violation of proviso (e) of the Notification.

Analysis:
1. The appellants appealed against the rejection of refund claims for Service Tax paid on GTA services used for material export. The claims were rejected by the adjudicating authority and upheld on appeal. The appellant argued that clerical errors in the documentation were bona fide and have been rectified. They requested a reexamination of corrected charts and documents. The adjudicating authority rejected the claim due to lack of documentation evidencing payment of Service Tax from ICD to the port of export. The Tribunal found these to be remediable defects and ordered a reexamination by the adjudicating authority in line with relevant circulars and notifications.

2. The second claim pertained to the alleged violation of proviso (e) of the Notification due to claiming drawback. The appellant contended that drawback was only taken on input and input services, not on GTA from ICD to the port, which they argued was not an input service. The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities did not examine this contention properly. The Commissioner (Appeals) presumed the inclusion of Service Tax paid on transportation in the drawback rates, leading to a need for reexamination. The Tribunal ordered a fresh adjudication by the adjudicating authority, allowing the appellants a fair opportunity to present their case.

Overall, the Tribunal remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the need for a thorough reexamination of the issues raised by the appellants regarding clerical errors, lack of documentation, and the alleged violation of the proviso in the Notification. The decision highlighted the importance of adhering to relevant circulars and notifications in assessing refund claims and drawback issues, ensuring a fair and comprehensive review of the appellant's submissions.