2015 (11) TMI 234 - AT - Service Tax

Denial of refund claim - Denial on the ground that authorization letter does not contain the signature of authorized signatory, although it bears the signature of the Director - Notification No. 41/2012 dated 29.6.2012 - Held that - This is explained by the appellant that it might be due to mistake while taking photocopy of the authorization letter dated 14.3.2013. While photocopying the authorization letter which was in Legal Size Paper to an A-4 Size Paper, the signature of Anand Agarwal put at the bottom was left out. The Commissioner took the view that this explanation is an after thought. It needs to mention that there is no dispute that Shri Anand Agarwal is the authorized signatory. All documents and refund claim has been filed by him. Even if there is an omission in the authorization letter as long as the assessee company does not dispute the signatures in the refund claim and documents, the omission is only a technical defect which can be condoned or cured. Rejection of refund claim on such a ground is totally unjustified. - adjudicating authority had properly considered the objections raised by the Range Superintendent. Admittedly the service tax for the impugned services used for export of goods has been paid. In such circumstances denial of refund on technical ground if any is not sustainable, as laid in various judgements. The refund claim is only to be allowed. - Impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of refund claim under Notification No. 41/2012 dated 29.6.2012
2. Proper documentation under Rule 11 for removal of goods
3. Utilization of Cenvat Credit for service tax paid on input services
4. Validity of authorization letter for refund claim
5. Payment status to service providers for GTA services
6. Bank realization certificate discrepancies
7. Consideration of objections by adjudicating authority
8. Denial of refund on technical grounds

Analysis:
1. The appellant's refund claim under Notification No. 41/2012 dated 29.6.2012 was rejected due to various defects noted by the Jurisdictional Superintendent. These defects included issues related to documentation, utilization of Cenvat Credit, authorization letter, payment status to service providers, and discrepancies in the bank realization certificate.

2. The adjudicating authority examined the transport documents, bills, and ledgers to reconcile the removal of goods with the shipping bills. The place of removal was considered as Vishakapatnam, and the invoices were found to be in order. The authority concluded that the refund of service tax for GTA services used in transporting goods for export was admissible.

3. The appellant was accused of availing Cenvat Credit for services not related to export, specifically telephone services. However, the appellant clarified that no refund was claimed for telephone services, and there was no evidence to suggest that credit was wrongly claimed for services used in exporting goods.

4. The issue regarding the validity of the authorization letter for the refund claim arose due to the absence of the authorized signatory's signature on the photocopy of the letter. The appellant explained that this was a mistake during photocopying and did not dispute the authenticity of the signature. The omission was considered a technical defect that could be condoned.

5. The denial of refund on technical grounds was deemed unjustified, especially when the service tax for the relevant services used in exporting goods had been paid. The Tribunal held that such denials based on procedural lapses were not sustainable, citing precedent judgments in support of allowing the refund claim.

6. Ultimately, the impugned order rejecting the refund claim was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential reliefs if any. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of considering the substance of the claim over technical deficiencies in granting refunds.

Conclusion:
The judgment highlighted the significance of proper documentation, valid authorization, and payment compliance in refund claims. It underscored the need to focus on the substance of the claim rather than procedural errors, ensuring that legitimate refund claims are not denied on technical grounds.