2012 (7) TMI 140 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - appellant, a 100% EOU - refund claim of service tax paid by them, as per the provisions of Notification No. 41/2007-ST - held that - . As the transporters are not making payment of service tax on GTA service, there can be no objection for not mentioning the service tax registration No. on the LRs. The purchase order Nos. are given in invoices and LRs and invoices Nos. are given on shipping bills. Thus, it can be easily correlated that the transportation of export goods was done and hence refund claim has been correctly sanctioned. There is no provision in the Central Excise Act to file appeal on the ground that Range Superintendent proposed for rejection of less amount but the Assistant Commissioner has rejected higher amount. Claim was scrutinized by Range Superintendent, then show cause notice was issued, defence reply was submitted and the claim was sanctioned after considering all the facts. This plea in the departmental appeal is totally frivolous because nothing has been stated that why claim can not be sanctioned. In place of filing an appeal on such a ground, the Review Cell should have randomly verified the payments of service tax and ascertained that in respect of some invoices, the respondent obtained refund but did not pay the same. In absence of such an allegation, the appellate authority cannot reject already sanctioned claim on the ground that random check of actual payment of service tax was not done.

Issues:
1. Refund claim of service tax paid by 100% EOU.
2. Rejection of refund claim by original adjudicating authority.
3. Appeal by Revenue before Commissioner (Appeals).
4. Grounds taken by Revenue for rejection of refund claim.
5. Commissioner (Appeals) rejecting the appeal filed by Revenue.
6. Appeal by Revenue against Commissioner (Appeals) order.
7. Detailed analysis of the judgment by Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad.

1. Refund claim of service tax paid by 100% EOU:
The appellant, a 100% EOU, exported goods and filed a quarterly refund claim for service tax paid on taxable services as per Notification No. 41/2007-ST. The original adjudicating authority initially issued a show cause notice for rejection of the claim but later sanctioned the refund after considering the appellant's defence reply.

2. Rejection of refund claim by original adjudicating authority:
The Revenue appealed before Commissioner (Appeals) citing various grounds for rejection of the refund claim, including issues with invoices from the transporter, discrepancies in amounts proposed for rejection, and submission of an irrelevant worksheet. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the Revenue's appeal after considering submissions from both sides.

3. Appeal by Revenue before Commissioner (Appeals):
The Revenue lodged an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) challenging the original adjudicating authority's decision to sanction the refund claim. The grounds for appeal included discrepancies in documentation and procedural issues related to the refund claim.

4. Grounds taken by Revenue for rejection of refund claim:
The Revenue raised several grounds for rejecting the refund claim, such as missing Service Tax Registration No. on invoices, discrepancies in proposed rejection amounts, and submission of an irrelevant worksheet not corresponding to the claim period.

5. Commissioner (Appeals) rejecting the appeal filed by Revenue:
After analyzing the submissions from both parties, the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue, finding merit in the appellant's contentions regarding the payment of service tax on GTA services by reverse charge method and the correlation between invoices, purchase orders, and shipping bills.

6. Appeal by Revenue against Commissioner (Appeals) order:
Following the rejection of its appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals), the Revenue appealed against this decision. However, the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad, reviewed the case and found that the Commissioner had properly addressed all issues raised by the Revenue, ultimately agreeing with the conclusions reached.

7. Detailed analysis of the judgment by Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad:
The Appellate Tribunal thoroughly examined the contentions made by both parties, highlighting the correct application of the reverse charge method for service tax on GTA services by the appellant. The Tribunal also addressed the discrepancies pointed out by the Revenue, emphasizing the importance of proper documentation and adherence to legal requirements. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal for lack of merit and affirming the correctness of the refund claim sanctioned by the original adjudicating authority.

← Previous Next →