2019 (4) TMI 1271 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of Service Tax paid - refund was denied on the strength of the CBEC circular no. 106/08-ST dated 11/12/2008 - HELD THAT - The refund is granted by way of exemption and the onus of establishing that the appellants are entitled for the benefit of notification is on the claimants. In the instant case, the claimants are required to establish at least two facts. Firstly, they are required to establish that duty has been discharged on services availed by them and second, that the said services have been used in the purpose of export. Revenue has vide circular no. 106/08-ST dated 11/12/2008, has clarified that the invoices/challans/bills issued by supplier of taxable services, in confirmity with Rule 4A of Service Tax Rules, 1994 would be sufficient evidence of payment of Service Tax by the Service Provider. The appellants have failed to produce invoice and the invoice produced by them did not contain Service Tax Registration number. Denial of refund on the services of storage warehousing received by them - HELD THAT - It is also not clear if the said storage and warehousing facility was used for domestic clearance also. No evidence in support of the claim has been produced - the appellants have failed to establish that the said services were used for the specified purpose and consequently, refund on this account is not admitted. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Denial of refund in respect of Service Tax paid on services used during export of goods; denial of refund on Service Tax paid on storage and warehousing activity.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, M/s Adani Enterprises Ltd., filed an appeal against the denial of refund for Service Tax paid on services used during the export of goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) remanded most issues back to the Original Adjudicating Authority but denied the refund on two specific issues. The first issue pertained to services invoices lacking registration numbers, leading to denial based on a CBEC circular. The appellant argued that despite the invoice deficiency, they provided the service provider's registration certificate, rectifying the defect. However, the Tribunal found that the burden of proof lay on the claimants to establish payment of duty on services used for export, which the appellants failed to do, as they did not produce proper evidence of Service Tax payment.

2. The second issue concerned the denial of refund on Service Tax paid for storage and warehousing activity. The denial was based on the lack of evidence showing the services were solely used for export products. The appellant contended that since the entire premise was utilized for export, no additional evidence was required as per the relevant notification. However, the Tribunal noted that the notification specified conditions for refund eligibility, including the exclusive use of storage or warehousing for export goods, which the appellant failed to prove. Additionally, it was unclear if the facility was used for domestic clearance as well, with no evidence supporting the claim. Consequently, the refund was not granted on this ground, leading to the dismissal of the appeal on both issues.

This comprehensive analysis highlights the key arguments, legal interpretations, and outcomes of the judgment, emphasizing the importance of meeting specific requirements for refund eligibility under the relevant notifications and circulars.