2018 (3) TMI 1552 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - exports of iron ore fines - denial on the ground that the services were not received by the exporter M/s.Emars Mining & Construction Pvt.Ltd. because the GTA Bills were not issued in their favor - Held that - That from the certificate given on all the original invoices or bills, it is observed that the said claimant has received and used the specified services for export of the said goods by mentioning specified shipping bill number as well as taxable specified services - the refund appears eligible for sanction stands as ₹ 37,09,530/- - the order of the adjudicating authority is restored - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim on exports of iron ore fines - Discrepancy in name on GTA Bills - Appeal against Order-in-Appeal - Verification of consignment notes - Eligibility for refund under Notification No.17/2009-ST.

Analysis:
The appellant filed an appeal against Order-in-Appeal No.51/ST-I/KOL/2017, challenging the disallowance of the refund claim related to the exports of iron ore fines. The dispute arose due to a discrepancy in the name on the GTA Bills issued for the services utilized. The Revenue contended that the services were not received by the exporter due to the variance in the name on the bills. The Commissioner(Appeals) sided with the Revenue, prompting the appellant's appeal before the Tribunal.

During the proceedings, the appellant's consultant argued that the difference in the name on the GTA Bills was a mere typing error and did not reflect any change in the company's identity. The consultant emphasized that all necessary details and supporting documents were submitted, including a certificate from the company auditor as required under the relevant notification. The appellant's position was that the refund was rightfully sanctioned after a thorough verification process.

The Revenue, represented by the ld.AR, reiterated the stance taken by the Commissioner(Appeals) in disallowing the refund claim based on the discrepancy in the name on the GTA Bills. However, upon hearing both sides and examining the appeal records, the Tribunal found fault with the Commissioner(Appeals)'s decision. The Tribunal disagreed with the Commissioner(Appeals)'s reasoning, particularly regarding the verification of consignment notes.

The Tribunal's analysis delved into the specifics of the adjudication order, highlighting that the appellant had fulfilled all requirements for the refund claim under Notification No.17/2009-ST. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had submitted all necessary documents, including original invoices, a certificate from the company auditor, and a Bank Realization Certificate. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant had complied with the conditions stipulated in the notification and had not availed CENVAT credit on the specified services used for export.

Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant's refund claim met the criteria outlined in the notification and relevant circulars. As a result, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner(Appeals)'s order and allowed the appellant's appeal, restoring the decision of the adjudicating authority. The Tribunal's detailed analysis underscored the importance of compliance with statutory requirements and the proper verification of documents in adjudicating refund claims related to exports.