2018 (1) TMI 1091 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - N/N. 17/2009-ST dated 07.07.2009 - exemption is to be claimed by way of filing refund claims - Jurisdiction - Held that - when the Revenue raises objection regarding jurisdiction, it is not mentioned what will be the correct jurisdiction. The respondent-assessee were registered in Katni Range under the jurisdiction of Assistant Commissioner, Jabalpur who decided the refund claims. There is no error in jurisdiction. Refund claim - Transport service - Held that - the respondent-assessee transported the goods directly to the port through different modes of transport as per their convenience and as such the claim for refund was found to be admissible. Mis-match of documents - Held that - There is a provision of self certification or certification by Chartered Accountant about co-relation and nexus of input services with the exports. It is clear that in present appeals the Revenue had not brought out a specific case of any mis-match in the documents supporting the claims. Refund claim - services provided by port or person authorised by the port - Held that - There is no dispute that services received by the respondent are falling under category of port services. The tax paid on such services has not been disputed. Hence, it is not open to the Revenue to contest that such tax paid on port services will not be eligible for exemption/ refund in terms of Notification No.17/2009-ST. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Issues:
1. Competency of Deputy Commissioner to decide refund claims under different notifications.
2. Admissibility of service tax on transport of goods.
3. Requirement of details in transporter's invoice.
4. Necessity of one-to-one correlation of documents for service tax discharge.
5. Admissibility of service tax on port services.
6. Eligibility for refund based on payment of service tax on port services.

Analysis:

Issue 1 - Competency of Deputy Commissioner:
The Revenue contended that the Deputy Commissioner lacked competence to decide refund claims under Notification No. 17/2009-ST, citing a circular related to a previous notification. However, the Tribunal found this objection baseless, noting that the 2009 notification superseded the 2007 notification, with both having the same object and scheme. The objection was deemed frivolous, and the Tribunal confirmed the jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner who decided the refund claims.

Issue 2 - Admissibility of service tax on transport:
The Revenue argued that service tax on transport from mines to railway siding was not admissible under Notification No. 17/2009-ST. However, the Tribunal found in favor of the respondent-assessee, noting that the transportation of goods directly to the port for export was eligible for refund, supported by relevant documentation.

Issue 3 - Requirement of details in transporter's invoice:
The Revenue raised concerns about the details in the transporter's invoice not matching with the exported goods. However, the Tribunal found that the respondent had provided sufficient documentation, including shipping bills and invoices, leaving no doubt about the export of iron ore, as per the circular allowing self-certification or certification by a Chartered Accountant.

Issue 4 - One-to-one correlation of documents:
The Revenue argued for a one-to-one correlation of documents for service tax discharge, emphasizing the role of a Chartered Accountant's certification. The Tribunal clarified that while such certification could be corroborative, it was not the primary basis for refund eligibility. As there was no specific case of mismatch in the documents, the objection was dismissed.

Issue 5 - Admissibility of service tax on port services:
The Revenue contended that service tax on port services was not admissible for refund under Notification No. 17/2009-ST. However, the Tribunal found that the respondent had submitted bills and invoices from service providers, establishing eligibility for exemption/refund, as the tax paid on port services was undisputed.

Issue 6 - Eligibility for refund based on payment of service tax on port services:
The Revenue argued that payment of service tax on port services did not automatically make the exporter eligible for a refund. However, the Tribunal upheld the admissibility of the tax paid on port services for exemption/refund, as per the notification's provisions.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed all the grounds raised by the Revenue, finding no merit in the appeals. The decisions in the impugned order were supported by detailed examination and were consistent with previous Tribunal rulings on similar disputes. The appeals were consequently dismissed on 07.12.2017.

← Previous Next →