2015 (9) TMI 1156 - AT - Service Tax

Denial of refund claim - input service - GTA Service used for export of goods - the appellant failed to submit any proof to establish any nexus between the inputs and the fact of the goods exported and that essential conditions for availment of refund under Notification No.17/2009-ST were not fulfilled - Held that - In the light of the concurrent finding of facts recorded by the authorities below, the claim by the appellant reiterated before this Tribunal, that the invoices submitted and that the refund claim contained details of the bills of lading which are essential documents of proof of export setting out the export invoices and container numbers and that photocopies of invoice/debit notes which were filed certified that the specific services were received regarding export of goods and that service tax was remitted and these should have been considered as substantial compliance with Notification No.17/209-ST, does not commend acceptance. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of claim for refund based on Notification No.17/2009-ST.
2. Failure to establish nexus between the appellant and service providers for refund claim.
3. Lack of essential conditions fulfillment for availing refund under Notification No.17/2009-ST.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, engaged in transport of goods by road and business auxiliary service, also a manufacturer and exporter of cotton terry towels, filed a refund claim under Notification No.17/2009-ST for service tax paid on clearing and forwarding services used in exporting goods. The claim was partially allowed by the Assistant Commissioner but rejected to a significant extent by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the primary authority due to discrepancies in documents provided.

2. The appellate authority upheld the rejection, emphasizing the lack of evidence establishing the connection between the appellant and the service providers claimed to have been utilized for exports. It was noted that essential documents like invoices/shipping bills proving the utilization of input services for exports were not furnished. Consequently, the appellate authority concluded that without proof of nexus between inputs and exported goods, the refund claim could not be granted.

3. The Tribunal, considering the concurrent findings of the lower authorities, dismissed the appeal reiterating that the documents submitted did not meet the requirements of Notification No.17/2009-ST. The appellant's argument that the invoices and refund claim details, along with bills of lading and photocopies of invoice/debit notes, should be considered as substantial compliance with the notification was not accepted. The Tribunal found no merit in the appeal and rejected it without imposing costs.