2020 (3) TMI 257 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of service tax - services used beyond the factory or any other place or premises of production or manufacture of the goods, for export of the said goods - refund rejected for want of improper invoice/ draft invoice as all the details required under Rule 4 A (Sub-rule 1) of Service Tax Rules, 1994 are not available in the invoices - period from October, 2016 to December, 2016 - N/N. 41/2012-ST dated 29.06.2012. HELD THAT - The invoices in question are very much on record. Perusal thereof shows that all the above said details are very much available on the said invoices. The invoice is issued by the service provider. The name is very much apparent thereupon. Even appellant s name is also specifically mentioned on the invoices. The details of shipping bill, bill of lading No., invoice No. are mentioned. It has been a settled law that so long there is a substantive compliance of the Notification the benefit cannot be denied and a mere clerical error should not be the ground of rejection of refund claim or the benefit. In view thereof the allegation of invoice being a mere draft invoice is not sustainable, specially when there is no other documents in possession of the Department to falsify the invoices produced by the appellant on record. The C.A. Certificate is also produced by the appellant clarifying that all the three invoices, as have been objected by the Department are related to the appellant only. Above all, the show cause notice itself recites that the refund claim was filed alongwith the supporting documents. There is no other document of the Department to rebut the presumption of correctness attached to the C.A. Certificate furnished by the appellant. Thus, the rejection of refund claim of ₹ 8,320/- on the ground of inadmissible invoices is not sustainable. Refund claim - Banking and Financial Services for ₹ 17,430/- - HELD THAT - The Banking services are related to collection of export proceeds. The Bank realization certificate had been furnished by the appellant to prove that the collection of export bill is made by the Banker after the export of goods. Thus, it cannot at all be denied that the banking and financial services are also received by the appellant beyond the place of removal that too, for export of goods. Therefore, these services are also held to fall within the category of specified service as mentioned in the impugned notification - The adjudicating authorities still have rejected the refund qua Banking and Financial services holding that the service is not used after the export is completed, rather it has been used along with the process of the export. The said observation is highly untenable is rather contrary to the above findings. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection based on improper invoices and non-export related banking and financial services.

Analysis:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing and export, filed a refund claim for Service Tax under a specific Notification. The Department found discrepancies in the claim related to specified services like cargo handling, port service, banking, and financial services. A show cause notice was issued proposing rejection of part of the claim. The initial rejection was partially confirmed, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal.

The appellant argued that all necessary details were present in the invoices, even if they were draft invoices, and a Chartered Accountant (C.A.) Certificate validated the information. Regarding banking and financial services, the appellant contended that they were indeed used for export purposes. Citing legal precedents, the appellant sought to set aside the rejection and allow the appeal.

The Department defended its decision, asserting no errors in the rejection. The Tribunal, after hearing both parties and examining the records, found that the rejected refund amount was filed for services used beyond the manufacturing premises for export. The Tribunal noted that the invoices contained all required details, and a mere clerical error should not lead to rejection. Referring to legal cases, the Tribunal upheld the validity of the invoices and the C.A. Certificate provided by the appellant.

Regarding banking and financial services, the Tribunal acknowledged their role in collecting export proceeds, supported by a Bank realization certificate. Relying on legal precedents, the Tribunal concluded that these services were indeed used for export purposes. Dismissing the Department's argument that the services were not used post-export, the Tribunal set aside the rejection and allowed the appeal, emphasizing the integral role of banking and financial services in the export process.

In light of the detailed analysis and legal considerations, the Tribunal set aside the order under challenge and allowed the appeal, pronouncing the decision in open court on 15/01/2020.