2012 (7) TMI 380 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - service tax paid on the input services - Courier Services and Transportation services utilised by the appellant for export of the goods claim denied on the ground that appellant has not provided the original or self attested copies of shipping bills, courier bills, bills of lading, MRs of invoices indicating actual export of the goods Held that - Appellant is also directed to show the linkage of the goods which are being exported by them with documents - order is set-aside and matter is remitted back to the adjudicating authority

Summary

Issues involved:
Refund claim of service tax paid on input services for export of goods.

Analysis:

1. Refund Claim Rejection:
The issue in this appeal pertains to the rejection of the refund claim on Courier Services and Transportation services utilized for exporting goods. Both lower authorities denied the refund due to the lack of original or self-attested copies of essential documents like shipping bills, courier bills, bills of lading, and invoices proving the actual export of goods.

2. Appellant's Submission:
The representative of the appellant argued that they had submitted proof of export acceptance to the lower authorities, indicating that the goods were indeed exported. They claimed to possess all necessary documents to support their assertion of goods exportation.

3. Verification of Documents:
Upon evaluating the submissions from both sides, the judge emphasized the importance of verifying the factual matrix regarding the production of required documents. The appellant was directed to present the original or self-attested copies of documents to substantiate their refund claims and establish the connection between the exported goods and the provided documents.

4. Remittance to Adjudicating Authority:
The judge concluded that the issue necessitated reconsideration by the adjudicating authority, emphasizing the need to review the documents to be submitted by the appellant. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the adjudicating authority for a fresh assessment, ensuring adherence to the principles of natural justice. Additionally, a timeline of two months was set for the adjudicating authority to dispose of the matter promptly.

5. Final Directive:
The judgment highlighted the significance of promptly addressing the issue, given its relation to the year 2001. The adjudicating authority was urged to expedite the reconsideration process and make a decision within two months from the appellant's submission of the court's order, ensuring a fair and efficient resolution of the refund claim dispute.