2015 (10) TMI 516 - AT - Service Tax

Denial of refund claim - Notification No.41/2007-ST as amended by the Notification No. 17/2009-ST, dated 6.10.2007 and 7.7.2009 - Held that - appellate Commissioner was satisfied that all conditions for claiming refund of service tax were fulfilled, except that on account of a clerical error, the assessee/claimant failed to affix stamp on some of the bills. Revenue in the present appeal does not dispute the findings of fact recorded by the appellate Commissioner in support of the conclusion that the assessee established its claim for grant of refund of the service tax incurred on receipt of taxable services which were used for export of rice and broken rice, which was the condition for granting refund under Notification No.17/2009-ST and 41/2009-ST. Revenue s present appeal reiterates the self same grounds as had found disfavor with the primary and the lower appellate authority. - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Claim for refund of service tax not in strict technical compliance with stipulated requirements.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by Revenue challenging the respondent's claim for a refund of service tax amounting to Rs. 19,62,030, contending that the claim did not strictly comply with the requirements of the relevant notifications. The respondent had initially filed a claim for refund of Rs. 44,03,972, stating that the service tax paid on taxable services was utilized for the export of rice and broken rice. The Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax sanctioned the refund as claimed. Revenue's appeal, however, focused on three components of the refund, specifically regarding port service and storage & warehousing service, claimed based on bills provided by a service provider. The Revenue argued that the refund should not be granted due to missing information on the bills, non-compliance with Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules, and ineligibility as per Notification No.17/2009-ST. The appellate Commissioner rejected Revenue's appeal, noting that the service provider was registered, had paid service tax, and the nature of the taxable service was clearly mentioned on the bills. The Commissioner found that all conditions for claiming the refund were met, except for a clerical error in affixing stamps on some bills.

The appellate Commissioner concluded that the claimant had fulfilled all conditions for the refund, except for the clerical error on some bills. Revenue did not dispute the findings supporting the claim for the refund of service tax paid on taxable services used for exporting rice and broken rice. The appeal by Revenue was deemed misconceived and dismissed, with no costs awarded. The judgment highlighted that the rejection of the refund claim based on a technical error, when all other conditions were met, was not justifiable. The Revenue's grounds for appeal were reiterated but found to lack merit based on the established facts and compliance with the relevant notifications. The decision upheld the grant of the refund to the respondent, emphasizing the importance of substance over technicalities in such matters.