2019 (7) TMI 1464 - AT - Service Tax

SEZ unit - Refund of service tax paid on services used for SEZ authorized operations - various input services - Banking and Financial Services - Rent a Cab Service - Technical Inspection and Certification services - Technical Inspection service. Banking and Financial Services - denial of refund on the ground that bank advices issued by the bank based on which the appellant sought refund of service tax did not contain the name of the appellant at all - HELD THAT - There is a lack of basic information essential even for the banking services - Learned CA submits that he would be in a position to collect relevant information to substantiate his claim that these documents pertain to the services received by them - it is deemed proper to remand the matter to the original authority to examine the documents that may be produced by the appellant - matter on remand. Rent a Cab Service - denial on the ground that the services were availed prior to the UAC approval - HELD THAT - This denial was only in appeal ST/31215/2018. In appeal ST/31017/2018 the first appellate authority himself has given refund of service tax paid on Rent a Cab services holding that the approval received by the appellant post availment of services is sufficient. Accordingly, the refund of service tax paid on Rent a Cab services may be allowed in appeal ST/31215/2018 also - refund allowed. Technical Inspection and Certification services - denial on the ground that they had not produced any evidence of payment to the vendor - HELD THAT - The original authority should get an opportunity to examine the evidence that may be produced by the appellant and decide about the entitlement of refund of service tax in respect of these invoices - matter on remand. Technical Inspection service - denial on the ground that the invoices are dated prior to the refund period - HELD THAT - Learned CA submits that they had claimed refund in terms of Notification 12/2013-ST which does not require the invoices to be dated during the period of claim of refund. It only requires that only one claim of refund is made during the quarter - In view of the clarification provided by the learned CA, I hold that appellant is entitled for refund of service tax in respect of this amount - refund allowed. Appeal allowed in part and part matter on remand.

Summary

Issues: Refund of service tax on input services; Denial of refund on various grounds; Appeal against denial of refund.

Analysis:

1. Background: The appellant, a unit in SEZ, sought a refund of service tax paid on services used for SEZ operations. The claims were partly allowed and partly denied by lower authorities, leading to two appeals being filed.

2. Denial of Refund: The denial of refund on various input services was the primary issue in dispute. The lower authorities had denied refunds based on reasons such as lack of documentary evidence, services not listed in approved categories, and invoices dated outside the refund period.

3. Detailed Grounds for Denial: The denial of refund was analyzed for each service category, including Banking and Financial Services, General Insurance Services, Rent a Cab services, Technical Inspection and Certification services, Technical Inspection Service, Maintenance or Repairs Services, Manpower Recruitment and Supply Agency Services, Transport of goods by Road services, Cleaning Activity Service, and Courier services.

4. Legal Arguments: The appellant's Chartered Accountant conceded certain refund denials but contested others based on legal provisions and interpretations. Arguments were made regarding the essential information required in documents for claiming service tax credit or refund.

5. Remand and Allowance: The Tribunal remanded certain matters to the original authority for further examination based on the appellant's submissions and legal arguments. Refunds were allowed for Rent a Cab services, Technical Inspection and Certification services, and Technical Inspection services after reevaluation.

6. Operative Order: The Tribunal partly allowed, partly rejected, and partly remanded the appeals to ensure a detailed examination of evidence and compliance with principles of natural justice. The decision was pronounced in open court after a thorough hearing.

7. Conclusion: The judgment provided a detailed analysis of each ground for denial of refund, legal arguments presented, and the final decision to remand, allow, or uphold the denial based on the merits of the case and applicable legal provisions.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, legal arguments, grounds for denial of refund, and the Tribunal's decision to remand certain matters for further examination, ensuring a fair and just resolution of the dispute.