2023 (11) TMI 893 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of service tax on input services - export of goods - dates of issue of cheques by the appellants to their service providers - Revenue was of the opinion that the invoices of the input services claimed are dated after the date of export - HELD THAT - It is found that whereas the Department claims that the invoices of the service availed is later than the date of export, the appellants submit documentary proof to the effect that the services were availed before the date of export and that the Department has mistakenly considered the date of issue of cheque to the service provider as the date of availing of the service or the date of issue of invoice by the service provider. Further, it is found that the services availed are that of the CHA whose services are required at the Port of export and therefore, the services are bound to be later than the date of removal of goods from the factory and before the actual export. For this reason, the services are availed before export. Therefore, the contention of the Department is incorrect. The wrong mentioning of the number of the notification does not take away the right of the appellant. The Department has not made out any case for rejection of the refund claimed by the appellant. Therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
The issues involved in the judgment are the rejection of refund claimed by the appellants based on the dates of invoices of input services, the classification of "CHA Services" as input services, and the impact of wrong mention of the notification number on the refund claim.

Refund Claim Based on Dates of Invoices:
The appellants, engaged in the manufacture of auto parts, claimed a refund of service tax paid on input services availed by them for exported goods. The Revenue rejected the refund, citing that the invoices of the input services claimed were dated after the date of export and that the notification under which the refund was claimed had been superseded by subsequent notifications. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection. The appellants contended that the Revenue erred in considering the dates of issue of cheques as the dates of invoices and that the services were availed before export, supported by documentary proof. The Tribunal found in favor of the appellants, noting that the services of the CHA were required at the Port of export and were availed before export, as evidenced in similar cases and legal precedents cited.

Classification of "CHA Services" as Input Services:
The Revenue had disputed the classification of "CHA Services" as input services, contributing to the rejection of the refund claim. However, the Tribunal found that the CHA services, essential at the Port of export, were availed before the actual export took place. This determination supported the appellants' claim for the refund.

Impact of Wrong Mention of Notification Number:
The appellants were also challenged on the wrong mention of the notification number in their refund claim. Despite this error, the Tribunal held that such a mistake did not invalidate the appellant's right to claim the refund. Citing relevant case laws, the Tribunal emphasized that the incorrect notification number did not warrant the rejection of the refund claim.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order rejecting the refund claim, finding that the Department failed to establish grounds for the rejection. The appeal was allowed, granting consequential relief as per the law.