9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (9) TMI 840 - AT - Service TaxRefund of service tax paid - input services - service tax paid on input services used for export of Cut and Polished Diamonds for the period October, 2015 to March, 2016 refundable in terms of N/N. 41/2002-S.T. dated 29.06.2012 or not - denial of CENVAT Credit. Refund of service tax paid - input services - service tax paid on input services used for export of Cut and Polished Diamonds for the period October, 2015 to March, 2016 refundable in terms of N/N. 41/2002-S.T. dated 29.06.2012 or not - HELD THAT - On perusal of the notification under which refund of service tax has been claimed, it transpires that the refund is being allowed in respect of service tax paid on the specified services used in respect of export of goods at the prescribed schedule of rates, subject to fulfillment of the conditions mentioned in clause (a) to (h) of paragraph 1; clause (a) to (h) of paragraph 2. It is the fact on record, that the original authority had scrutinized the refund claim filed 30.09.2016 and after recording the findings that the appellants have followed all the prescribed procedure and have also fulfilled all the conditions of the said Notification dated 29.06.2012, had sanctioned the refund. In order to claim the refund of service tax paid on the input services on export of goods as per the Notification No.41/2012-S.T. dated 29.06.2012, the only requirement in respect of the address of the appellants-exporter is that they should have taken registration as exporter with the Export Promotion Council sponsored by Ministry of Commerce which in the present case is the Gem Jewellery Export Promotion Council. Further, the appellants-exporter have also registered with the jurisdictional Service Tax authorities vide Service Tax registration No.AAAFL0356LST001. Hence, it is found that the requisite conditions for registration of the details with the departmental authorities have been duly fulfilled in the case. CENVAT Credit - denial on the ground that the address mentioned in the invoices were not the registered address of the appellants - HELD THAT - It is found from the records of the case that an application for change of address in ST-2 Certificate issued for the appellants earlier, was made by them to the jurisdictional Service Tax authorities through online on 04.04.2014 and in physical form of letter dated 28.04.2014. This has been duly received by the department by acknowledging it on 29.04.2014, for single premises at their new address viz., GE-2022, 2nd Floor, Bharat Diamond Bourse, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai 400 051 . Further, it is also found that the said new address as above was also duly incorporated in the ST-2 certificate. Further, there is no dispute with respect to use of input service in the provision of final products being exported; except for the procedural aspect with respect to correct address. Hon ble Madras High Court have held in the case of COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX-III, CHENNAI VERSUS CUSTOMS, EXCISE SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI M/S. SCIOINSPIRE CONSULTING SERVICES (INDIA) PVT LTD, CHENNAI 2017 (4) TMI 943 - MADRAS HIGH COURT have held that right of the exporter for refund cannot be denied on account of not correlating the location of registered address. Thus, where the appellants-exporter have duly registered their address and the change in the address duly incorporated in the ST-2 Service Tax Registration Certificate, there are no merits in the impugned order to the extent of denying refund of input service tax paid in respect of export goods. The impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Dispute in refund of service tax paid on input services used for export of goods. 2. Address discrepancy on input service tax invoices. 3. Compliance with Notification No. 41/2012-ST dated 29.06.2012. 4. Procedural requirements for refund claims. Detailed Analysis: 1. Dispute in Refund of Service Tax: The appellants, M/s Living Stones, Mumbai, filed an appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No. MUM/DGPM/WRU/APP-167/2017-18 dated 17.05.2018, disputing the denial of a refund of service tax paid on input services used for the export of 'Cut and Polished Diamonds' for the period October 2015 to March 2016. The refund was initially sanctioned by the original authority but later denied by the Commissioner (Appeals) due to address discrepancies on the invoices. 2. Address Discrepancy on Input Service Tax Invoices: The core issue was the address on the input service tax invoices not matching the registered address of the appellants. The invoices were addressed to the appellants' office at Bandra-Kurla Complex, which was not incorporated in their Service Tax registration details. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the refund, stating that the invoices should have matched the registered address. 3. Compliance with Notification No. 41/2012-ST: The Tribunal examined Notification No. 41/2012-ST, which provides for a rebate of service tax on services used for the export of goods. The notification stipulates that exporters must be registered with the Export Promotion Council and the jurisdictional Service Tax authorities. The appellants had fulfilled these conditions and registered their new address with the authorities, which was acknowledged. 4. Procedural Requirements for Refund Claims: The Tribunal noted that the original authority had scrutinized the refund claim and found it compliant with the prescribed procedures and conditions of Notification No. 41/2012-ST. The appellants had notified the change of address to the department, and the new address was incorporated in their ST-2 certificate. The Tribunal emphasized that procedural discrepancies should not deny substantial benefits if the substantive conditions are met. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the appellants had duly registered their address and fulfilled all conditions for claiming the refund. The denial of the refund based on address discrepancies was not justified. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order dated 17.05.2018 and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellants, granting a refund of Rs. 2,17,230/- with consequential relief. Order Pronounced: The order was pronounced in the open court on 09.09.2024, allowing the appeal and directing the refund to the appellants as per law.
|
