2022 (12) TMI 659 - AT - Service Tax

Refund / Reabte - specified services received and used by them for export of Iron Ore Fines - Notification No.41/2007-ST as amended - Refund rejected on the ground that, None of the Challan/Bill/Lorry Receipt submitted by the claimant contains the reference of the export invoice as stipulated in the Notification. - HELD THAT - In para 6.2 of this Circular, C.B.E. C. has clarified that only a broad co-relation of input services and Service Tax paid is required to be made with respect to exports. This Circular was relied upon by the appellant before the Adjudicating Authority, as mentioned in submissions of the assessee. At the same time Ld. Authorized Representative appearing on behalf of the respondent Revenue could not produce the required documents before the Bench to ascertain as to what extent co-relation can be made and whether any liberal view can be taken in these proceedings in view of C.B.E. C. Circular No. 120/01/2010-S.T. dated 19-1-2010. So far as admissibility of Service tax paid on GTA Services is concerned, it is observed that similar refunds were allowed by the Tribunal in the case of Jumbo Mining Ltd. v. CCE Hyderabad 2012 (7) TMI 739 - CESTAT, BANGALORE Refund allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of refund claim of Rs.3,53,884 under Notification No.41/2007-ST.
2. Compliance with conditions for claiming refund on GTA services.
3. Eligibility of the appellant for refund of services related to export of goods under Notification No.41/2007-S.T.

Analysis:
1. The Appellate Tribunal considered an appeal filed by M/s. Devansh Exports against the rejection of a refund claim of Rs.3,53,884 under Notification No.41/2007-ST. The dispute arose due to non-compliance with conditions specified in the notification, requiring details of the exporter's invoice in the lorry receipt and shipping bill. The Ld. Commissioner rejected the claim, emphasizing strict compliance with the notification's conditions for availing benefits.

2. The main issue revolved around the eligibility of the appellant for a refund of services linked to the export of goods under Notification No.41/2007-S.T. The appellant argued that in cases of bulk cargo, export invoices are prepared only after loading onto the vessel, making it challenging to mention invoice details in advance. The appellant relied on tribunal decisions emphasizing a broad correlation between transport evidence, service tax paid, and quantity exported, as opposed to strict adherence to invoice references.

3. The Tribunal analyzed Circular No. 120/01/2010-S.T., highlighting the challenges faced by exporters in correlating input services with exports. The appellant cited the circular to support self-certification or Chartered Accountant certification as sufficient for refund sanctioning. The Tribunal noted the absence of documents from the Revenue to determine the extent of correlation required. Refunds for similar cases were allowed previously by the Tribunal, emphasizing a broad correlation approach over procedural violations.

4. Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, restoring the Order-in-Original dated 24.01.2017. The appeal by the Appellant was allowed with consequential benefits, following the logic of simplified schemes for certification under Notification No.17/2009-S.T. The decision highlighted the need for a broad correlation of input services and exports, rather than strict adherence to invoice references, in granting refunds under the specified notifications.