2018 (3) TMI 20 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of service tax - denial on the ground that the appellant has not produced any evidence to show that the Port Service Providers were authorized by the Port to provide such services, as also on the ground that in some of the cases the service categories were shown to be in than the invoices - Held that - the issue stands covered by the Tribunal s decision in the case of SRF Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur-I 2015 (9) TMI 1281 - CESTAT NEW DELHI wherein it stands held that description of Port Service given in the Notification No.41/2007 being different from the description of Port Service defined in Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994, cannot be adopted as a ground for denial of refund. Further the assessee cannot be burdened unduly with the condition to establish that service provider was registered under Port Services and were authorized by the port. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund of Service Tax paid on various services for export under specific notifications; Denial of refund claim based on lack of evidence of authorization by port service providers and discrepancies in service categories on invoices.

Analysis:
The judgment deals with the issue of refund of Service Tax paid on services utilized for export under specific notifications. The Commissioner (Appeals) denied the refund claim due to the absence of evidence showing authorization of service providers by the port or any authorized person, and discrepancies in service categories on invoices. The Lower Authorities emphasized the mandatory requirement of authorization by the port for services to be considered taxable. The appellant failed to provide evidence of such authorization, leading to the denial of the refund claim.

The Tribunal referred to a precedent decision in the case of SRF Ltd. versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur-I, where it was held that discrepancies in the description of port services between notifications and the Finance Act cannot be a valid ground for denial of refund. Additionally, the Tribunal stated that the burden should not be placed on the assessee to prove registration and authorization of service providers under port services. Citing precedent decisions and Board Circulars, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order and allowing all appeals with consequential relief.

In conclusion, the judgment clarifies that discrepancies in service descriptions and the burden of proving authorization should not unjustly impact the refund claims of exporters. The decision provides relief to the appellant by overturning the denial of the refund claim based on the lack of evidence regarding authorization by port service providers and discrepancies in service categories on invoices.