9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (5) TMI 481 - AT - Service TaxRefund of service tax paid - rejection on the ground that the description of the services on the invoices of Xerox India Ltd is not acceptable as the service provider is required to mention the actual service description in the invoices raised by them - Held that - the findings of the lower authorities that the description of the services is not acceptable seems to be incorrect as from the invoices it is clear that the services rendered is indicated by the service provider as support services of business or commerce - refund allowed. The appellant is an SEZ unit is not disputed and the receipt of the services is also not disputed as also the payment of service tax to the service provider. In the absence of any adverse findings on these issues, appellant herein is eligible for claiming the refund of the service tax paid by the service provider which is in consonance with the law. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
Refund claim rejection based on service tax payment for services in SEZ Unit under Notification No. 40/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012. Analysis: The appellant's refund claim of &8377; 2,52,036/- for service tax paid under Business Support Services in the SEZ Unit was rejected by lower authorities citing inadequate service description on invoices and eligibility for service tax exemption. The appellant contended that Notification No. 40/2012 allows for either non-taxation by the service provider or refund claim by the SEZ recipient. The service provider's invoices indicated support services of business or commerce, specifically photostat copying, not machine supply. The Tribunal found the service description clear from the documents, contrary to lower authorities' findings. Regarding service tax payment, Notification No. 40/2012 applies to both service provider and SEZ recipient, allowing the SEZ unit to pay service tax and claim refund, which the appellant did. As no disputes existed on SEZ status, service receipt, or tax payment, the Tribunal deemed the appellant eligible for refund, overturning the lower authorities' decision. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
|
