2019 (7) TMI 1244 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - N/N. 41/2012-ST dated 29.06.2012 - refund denied on the ground that the service provider was not required to pay service tax on the services provided abroad - denial also on the ground that the original invoices were not produced - HELD THAT - Considering the fact that although services has been provided in abroad but the service provider has paid service tax and the same has been deposit with the Revenue and the appellant has borne the said service tax, therefore, in terms of Section 11(B) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the appellant is entitled to file refund claim of the service tax borne by them, therefore, the appellant is entitled to claim the refund. Original invoices - HELD THAT - The appellant has produced the invoices which are computer generated invoices. On those invoices, no signature is required and it is presumed by the adjudicating authority as well as the Commissioner (A) that these are not original invoices. To that effect, the appellant has produced certificate from the provider of the services to the appellant. In that circumstances, the appellant is entitled to refund claim and the same cannot be rejected only on this sole ground. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of refund claim under Notification No. 41/2012-ST dated 29.06.2012.
2. Requirement of payment of service tax on services provided abroad.
3. Non-production of original invoices.

Analysis:
1. The appellant appealed against the denial of their refund claim under Notification No. 41/2012-ST dated 29.06.2012. The impugned order was based on the grounds that the service provider was not required to pay service tax on services provided abroad and that original invoices were not produced.

2. The Tribunal considered the arguments from both parties and noted that although the services were provided abroad, the service provider had paid service tax, which had been deposited with the Revenue. As per Section 11(B) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the appellant was entitled to file a refund claim for the service tax they had borne. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the appellant was entitled to claim the refund.

3. Addressing the issue of original invoices, the Tribunal found that the appellant had submitted computer-generated invoices, which did not require a signature. However, the adjudicating authority and the Commissioner (A) presumed these invoices to be non-original. The appellant provided a certificate from the service provider to validate the invoices. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled that the refund claim could not be rejected solely on the basis of non-production of original invoices. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.