2015 (12) TMI 17 - AT - Service Tax

Denial of refund claim - PORT services and CHA services - appellant had not complied with the conditions of notification and they file to furnish evidences of actual payment of service tax - Held that - finding recorded by the lower authorities of the documents are improper, the document in appeal, on perusal, found to be correct and in accordance with the provisions of Service Tax Rules. We find that the invoices contain service tax registration Number, Name and address of the invoice maker and appellant s name as the services receiver as regards the documents of Port Trust, we find that the said documents clearly indicate service tax registration number of Mumbai Port Trust and service tax amount discharged under the head Port Services . In our considered view, there being no dispute as to the facts that services were utilized by the appellant for export of goods, rejection refund of such an amount is incorrect. Secondly, we find both the lower authorities recording that appellant should have produced evidence as to payment of service tax liability by the service provider to the government of India is a non-starter and curious findings. We find on careful reading of notification no. 41/2007-ST dated 06 Oct. 2007, it does not indicate that the refund claim is to be evidenced by producing information of the service provider having discharged the service tax liability. - conditions of notification of discharging the service tax liability by the appellant to the service provider are satisfied and there is no reason for rejecting the appeal.- Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues: Refund claim of service tax paid on inputs services used for manufacturing of goods exported.

Analysis:
The appeals were filed against an order-in-appeal rejecting a refund claim of service tax paid on PORT services and CHA services used for manufacturing goods that were exported. The adjudicating authority and the first appellate authority had both rejected the refund claim, citing non-compliance with conditions of notification and lack of evidence of actual payment of service tax. The appellant argued that the lower authorities incorrectly insisted on evidence of payment by the service provider, contrary to the notification's requirements. The departmental representative contended that the documentary evidence provided did not match the services rendered dates, and relied on a CBEC circular. The Tribunal considered both arguments.

The issue revolved around the refund of service tax paid by the appellant for services used in exporting goods. The services were provided by Mumbai Port Trust and CHA, and the appellant was eligible to avail credit for the service tax paid. The Tribunal found the lower authorities' findings to be improper, as the documents submitted were correct and compliant with Service Tax Rules. The invoices contained necessary details and indicated payment of service tax by the service providers. The Tribunal emphasized that the services were indeed used for exporting goods, making the refund rejection incorrect. Additionally, the Tribunal disagreed with the lower authorities' requirement for evidence of service tax payment by the service provider, as the notification did not mandate such proof. By analyzing the notification clauses, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant satisfying the payment of invoices met the notification's conditions. The Tribunal highlighted the practicality of paying fees to the port trust for exporting goods, further supporting the appellant's case.

In light of the above analysis, the Tribunal deemed the impugned order unsustainable and set it aside, allowing the appeals with consequential relief. The judgment clarified the requirements for refund claims under the notification and emphasized the validity of the appellant's documentation and compliance with service tax payment conditions.