2014 (11) TMI 251 - AT - Service Tax

Denial of refund claim - Notification No. 17/09-CUS dated 7/7/09 - Non submission of original invoices - Service provided by assessee are not port services - Service provider registered under different category - Non mention of goods on invoices - CHA has charged other charges which do not fall under the CHA services - refund claim was filed by describing the transportation of the goods by road, whereas the actual transportation was rail - the claim was filed under the category of THC instead of CHA - Held that - invoices which are computerised invoices have been down loaded through the internet - Cenvat credit is not to be denied on the basis of computer generated invoices. Any services provided on the port are port services - refund cannot be denied on the ground that service providers are not registered for any particular services - admittedly the said invoices have cross reference to either invoice number or the shipping bill number and/or container number. From the said cross references the description of the goods can be found out and the denial of the claim on the said ground is not justified when admittedly the services have been used for the export of the goods. - much as and as long as the CHA paid the service tax on the entire consideration under the category of CHA services, the service recipient would be entitled to the benefit of the same. No such objection was raised by the Revenue at the time of collection of service tax from the CHA and allowing them to raise such an objection at the time of grant of refund would be against the principles of justice. There are the inadvertent mistakes having occurred in the hands of the person preparing the refund claim. Similarly claiming the service tax under a different service category by referring to a wrong sub-Section should not result in denial of the refund, if otherwise due to the appellant on merits. - Matter remanded back - Following decision of CCE vs. Gokul Refoilds & Solvents Ltd. reported in 2012 (6) TMI 245 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD , Western Agencies Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE reported in 2011 (3) TMI 528 - CESTAT, CHENNAI (LB) and CCE vs. Dishman Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals Ltd. reported in 2010 (10) TMI 355 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD - decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Refund of service tax paid on specified input services under Notification No. 17/09-CUS.
2. Denial of refund due to non-submission of original invoices.
3. Classification of services provided at the port.
4. Denial of refund for CHA services due to lack of goods description on invoices.
5. Denial of refund for other charges by CHA.
6. Incorrect categorization of services for refund claim.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Refund of service tax paid on specified input services under Notification No. 17/09-CUS:
The appellants, mostly exporters of handicrafts, filed refund claims for service tax paid on various specified input services. The Tribunal found that denial of refund on the ground of non-submission of original invoices was not justified. Precedent decisions and Board Circular No. 112/6/2009-ST supported the appellants' contention that computer-generated invoices were valid. The Assistant Commissioner was directed to verify the refund claims afresh.

Issue 2: Denial of refund due to non-submission of original invoices:
Refund claims were rejected in some cases for not submitting original invoices. The Tribunal held that denial on this ground was not in line with precedent decisions and circulars. The appellants' argument that computerized invoices downloaded from the internet were valid was accepted. The Assistant Commissioner was directed to re-examine the refund claims without technical and procedural issues.

Issue 3: Classification of services provided at the port:
The denial of refund on the basis that certain services provided at the port were not classified as port services was overturned. The Tribunal referred to previous judgments emphasizing that services provided at the port are considered port services. The Assistant Commissioner was instructed to review the refund claims based on this clarification.

Issue 4: Denial of refund for CHA services due to lack of goods description on invoices:
Refund claims for CHA services were denied due to invoices not mentioning goods descriptions. The Tribunal ruled that cross-referencing with invoice numbers or shipping details could determine the goods' description. The Adjudicating Authority was directed to verify the invoices and descriptions to reconsider the refund claims.

Issue 5: Denial of refund for other charges by CHA:
Refund denial for charges beyond CHA services by the CHA was rejected. The Tribunal held that as long as the CHA paid service tax on the entire consideration under CHA services, the service recipient should be entitled to the refund. Raising objections at the refund stage after collecting taxes would be unjust.

Issue 6: Incorrect categorization of services for refund claim:
Errors in categorizing services for refund claims, such as describing road transportation instead of rail or claiming under the wrong service category, were considered inadvertent mistakes. The Tribunal emphasized that such errors should not lead to refund denial if the claim is otherwise valid. The matter was remanded to the Assistant Commissioner for a fresh examination without raising technical issues.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed all appeals by remanding the cases for a fresh review of the refund claims in light of legal precedents and without procedural hindrances.