2009 (10) TMI 402 - AT - Service Tax

Service used for export of goods- Refund-The only objection Revenue has taken is that the invoices did not contain the necessary details and same have been given subsequently. Therefore, the rejection of refund claim on these grounds is not correct. Accordingly, the matter is remanded to the Original Adjudicating Authority who will he free to verify the correctness of the details submitted by the appellants and also verify whether there is a proper linkage or not and consider the refund claim afresh. Accordingly, the matter is remanded back to the Original Adjudicating Authority.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection due to incomplete courier invoices and lack of linkage with goods.

Analysis:
The appeal was against the rejection of a refund claim by the appellant based on incomplete courier invoices and lack of linkage with goods. The advocate for the appellant argued that the refund claim was for service tax paid to couriers for services rendered in relation to goods between April 2008 to May 2008. The advocate highlighted that as per Notification No. 3/2008-ST, specific details were required on the courier receipt for claiming a refund, including exporter details, JEC No, etc., and evidence linking the courier service to export goods. Due to the proximity of the period to the notification issue date, the courier invoices initially did not contain all the necessary details. However, upon request, the courier company provided the missing details. The lower authorities rejected the refund claim citing the lack of details on the original invoices. The Departmental Representative (DR) argued that if the invoices did not meet the notification requirements, a refund could not be granted.

Upon considering both sides' arguments, it was acknowledged that the goods were exported, and courier services were utilized without dispute. The key contention was the absence of necessary details on the invoices, which were later provided separately. The judgment clarified that while the receipt from the courier agency should ideally contain specified details, providing these separately was permissible if the original receipt lacked them. The court emphasized that the essential evidence linking the courier service to the goods did not need to be on the invoice itself; it could be produced later by the exporter. Therefore, rejecting the refund claim solely based on these grounds was deemed incorrect. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the Original Adjudicating Authority for verification of the details submitted by the appellant, ensuring the proper linkage between the courier service and the goods, and reconsidering the refund claim accordingly.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the legal nuances surrounding the rejection of a refund claim due to incomplete courier invoices and the absence of a linkage with the exported goods. The judgment emphasizes the importance of compliance with notification requirements while also allowing flexibility for providing missing details separately and producing evidence of linkage at a later stage. The decision to remand the matter back to the Original Adjudicating Authority for a fresh consideration underscores the need for a thorough verification process before granting or rejecting refund claims in such cases.