2013 (11) TMI 652 - HC - Service Tax

Refund claim of service tax paid on input services utilized in export of goods - part of the refund claim denied on the ground that the claim pertains to period 16.08.2011 to 15.09.2011 whereas Shipping Bill No.4642020 dated 21.07.2011 submitted by them does not cover period of refund - Held that - Refund claimed pertains to a later period, whereas the Shipping bill enclosed with the refund claimed was dated 22.2.2011, is a finding of fact. The Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the CESTAT have recorded categorical findings that as claimed by the appellant there was no clerical error. The facts available on record clearly established that the claim was not for the period for which the refund was claimed. The goods exported vide the said Shipping bills, were not stored/warehoused during the period of 16.9.2011 to 15.10.2011, and were in fact exported well before that period is a finding of fact, which does not raise any question of law to be considered by the Court - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim under Central Excise Act, 1944; Admissibility of refund claim for service tax paid on input services used in the export of goods; Discrepancy in invoices submitted with refund claim; Appeal against rejection of refund claim; Clerical errors in documentation; Jurisdiction of Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a Central Excise Appeal under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, arising from an order by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, upholding the rejection of a refund claim amounting to Rs.85,291. The respondent had filed a refund claim for service tax paid on input services used in the export of goods, but the claim was partially rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner found discrepancies in the invoices submitted, stating that the services claimed were not utilized in the export of goods, thus rendering the refund inadmissible. The CESTAT concurred with the Commissioner's findings, upholding the rejection of the appeal.

The appellant contended that the matter should be remanded as the correct invoices were filed, attributing the discrepancies to a mistake that could be rectified by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise. However, the Court found no merit in this argument, emphasizing that the findings regarding the period of the refund claim and the actual export dates were factual determinations. Both the Commissioner (Appeals) and the CESTAT had concluded that there were no clerical errors, and the goods were not stored or warehoused during the period for which the refund was claimed, supporting the rejection of the claim.

Ultimately, the Court dismissed the Central Excise Appeal, highlighting that the facts on record clearly demonstrated the inadmissibility of the refund claim due to the mismatch between the claimed period and the actual export dates. The judgment underscores the importance of accurate documentation and the necessity for services to be directly linked to the export of goods for refund eligibility, emphasizing the factual nature of the findings made by the lower authorities in such matters.