2016 (5) TMI 86 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - Service tax paid on technical, inspection and certification service in respect of services utilized for export of the goods - Notification No. 17/2009-ST dated 09/7/2009 - Held that - the invoice as also the shipping bills raised by the appellant were available at the time of raising of the bill by M/s Threads Incorporation Buying Services and could have been very well mentioned in the said invoice. However, the same was not referred in the bill for the services, for the reasons best known to the appellant. Also the particulars mentioned in the said bill so raised by the service provider only refers to the fees for inspection services. There are no other particulars provided in the said bill relating to the cargo, the place of inspection as also the date of inspection. In a nutshell there is nothing in the original invoice so raised by the service provider to link the service of inspection with the export cargo. In such a scenario, we fully agree with the lower Authorities that in the absence of any co-relation and linkage with the services and with the export of the goods, the refund cannot be granted in terms of Notification No. 17/2009-ST. Also the appellant interpolated the said bill raised by M/s Threads Incorporation Buying Services by introducing their invoice has alongwith the shipping bills, which in any case were available even at the time of issuance of the invoice but were not mentioned therein. This act of the appellant clearly is a malafide action to mislead the Authorities and is a fraudulent one. In the absence of any particulars having mentioned in the original invoices raised by M/s Threads Incorporation Buying Services, we really failed to understand as to how the said certificate stand issued by the service provider, probably on the basis of their memory. Even in the said certificate, apart from certifying that the invoices raised by them was for the export of the goods, there is no details as to how and at which place and in respect of which goods the said certification /inspection was done. As rightly observed by Commissioner (Appeals) that such a certificate can be used for filling up the gaps or as a corroborative material and cannot be made the sole basis for grant of relief to the assessee, especially when there is no such references either in relation to the kind of the goods, the date of inspection and the place of inspection or to any other documentary evidences to show that the said inspection was in relation to the exported goods. Therefore, no justifiable reasons found to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the Authorities below. - Decided against the appellant

Summary

Issues:
Refund of service tax paid on technical, inspection, and certification services for export of goods under Notification No. 17/2009-ST.

Analysis:
The case involved the appellant, an exporter of readymade garments, filing a refund claim for service tax paid on specified services used for export of goods under Notification No. 17/2009-ST. The dispute centered around the refund of service tax paid on technical, inspection, and certification services. The original Adjudicating Authority rejected the refund claim citing lack of evidence linking the services received to the goods exported, as required by the notification.

The appellant appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals), who noted that the invoices of the inspection agencies had linkage with the appellant's invoices and shipping bills. However, upon further investigation, it was revealed that the appellant had subsequently added details to the invoices, leading to a suspicion of malafide intent to mislead the authorities. The appeal was consequently rejected by the Appellate Authority.

The appellant argued that the original invoices only mentioned "fees for inspection services" and that the subsequent addition of invoice and shipping bill numbers was due to unavailability at the time of inspection. However, a detailed scrutiny revealed that the appellant had indeed interpolated the invoices to include details that were available at the time of raising the bill by the service provider. The lack of specific details in the original invoices to link the inspection services with the export cargo further weakened the appellant's case.

Additionally, the appellant's submission of a certificate from the service provider, obtained after the original Adjudicating Authority's decision, was deemed insufficient. The certificate lacked specific details regarding the inspection done in relation to the exported goods, leading to doubts about its credibility. The absence of corroborative evidence or references in the certificate further undermined its validity as the sole basis for granting relief to the appellant.

Ultimately, the Tribunal found no justifiable reasons to interfere with the decisions of the lower Authorities and rejected the appeals filed by the appellant. The case highlighted the importance of maintaining transparency and providing concrete evidence to support refund claims, especially when seeking relief under specific notifications governing service tax exemptions for export-related services.