2023 (6) TMI 413 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - services used for export of goods - denial on the ground that there are some discrepancy in the service bills in as much as the bills do not tally with the form A1 for export submitted by the appellant - failure to produce registration certificate from export council as required under para 2 (1) (B) of Notification No. 17/2009 ST dated 07.07.2009 - Classification of input services under port service and test and inspection service - violation of principles of natural justice. HELD THAT - There is no dispute that the appellant have exported the goods and the services in question were used for export of such goods. It is also found that the reason for rejecting the refund claim is all based on small technicalities, for technical lapse substantial benefit of refund of input services for export of goods cannot be denied. Classification of input services under port service and test and inspection service - HELD THAT - The appellant have submitted all the documents and certificates such as shortage explanation, disclaimer certificate, tabular chart of invoices and export against the same with shipping bill numbers along with the refund application. Therefore, on this count also refund cannot be disputed. The lower authorities have raised the issue on unjust enrichment, in this regard it is clear that on the basis of settled law in the case of refund against export of goods, the provisions of unjust enrichment is not applicable. Moreover, in the present case the appellant have submitted the chartered accountant certificate and have also shown the books of account wherein the refund amount is reflected as receivable. On this fact also unjust enrichment is not applicable. The appellant is entitled for the refund - the impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The denial of refund claim for services used in the export of goods under Notification No 17/2009-ST, discrepancy in service bills, non-production of registration certificate from export council, classification of services, rejection on grounds of unjust enrichment.

Refund Claim Denial:
The appellant's refund claim for services used in the export of goods was denied due to discrepancies in service bills and non-production of required registration certificate from the export council. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the claim, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), leading to the present appeal.

Classification of Services:
The appellant argued that all input services used in the final export of goods, which have suffered tax incidence, are eligible for refund. The appellant contended that the lower authorities erred in rejecting the refund claim based on technicalities, emphasizing that the services were indeed used for export of goods from Mundra Port.

Rejection on Unjust Enrichment Grounds:
The lower authorities rejected the claim on the grounds of unjust enrichment, despite the appellant producing a Chartered Accountant Certificate. The appellant argued that provisions of unjust enrichment do not apply in cases of refund against export of goods, citing relevant case law to support their position.

Judgment:
The Member (Judicial) considered the submissions from both sides and reviewed the records. It was observed that the appellant had indeed exported goods and the services in question were utilized for such exports. The rejection of the refund claim was deemed to be based on minor technicalities, which should not deprive the appellant of the substantial benefit of refund for input services used in export.

Classification of Input Services:
The Member found that the services provided by Mundra Port and inspection agencies were correctly classified as port services and technical inspection services, respectively. Disputes regarding the classification of services were dismissed, emphasizing that the service provider's classification should not be questioned at the recipient end.

Unjust Enrichment and Refund Entitlement:
In light of the settled law on refund against export of goods, the provisions of unjust enrichment were deemed inapplicable. The appellant's submission of a Chartered Accountant Certificate and evidence of the refund amount as receivable further supported the conclusion that unjust enrichment did not apply.

Final Decision:
Consequently, the impugned order denying the refund claim was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief to be granted in accordance with the law. The judgment was pronounced in open court on 07.06.2023.