2017 (5) TMI 343 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - N/N. 41/2007-ST dated 6.10.2007 - denial on the ground that the services are not specified services for refund as these services have not been received by the appellant at port for export of goods - Held that - CBEC Circular 112/06/2009-ST dated 12.03.2009, clarified that the service provided/received in the port area do qualify as port services - refund allowed. Refund claim - denial on account of discrepancy in the transport of documents, the name of the ICD Code etc. are not mentioned in the transportation documents along with description of the goods - Held that - this service has not been received by the appellant for transportation of goods at port for export with regard to the goods exported, therefore, the said defect is technical in nature - in terms of Board Circular No. 112/6/2009-ST dated 12.03.2009 procedural infractions in respect of export documents are required to be ignored while granting refund - refund cannot be denied. Refund claim - denial on the ground that invoice has been issued in the name of head office of the appellant for the input services - Held that - this is a technical defect - there is otherwise no dispute about the input services received by the assessee. The substantive benefit cannot be denied on the procedural grounds - refund allowed. Refund claim - denial on the ground that the appellant failed to provide the invoice issued by the M/s APL Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi who has provided the transport service - Held that - these invoices have not been produced by the appellant before the adjudicating authority. In that circumstances, the matters needs examination at the end of the adjudicating authority to examine the invoices - matter on remand. Appeal allowed - part matter allowed and part matter on remand.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Denial of refund claims under Notification No. 41/2007-ST for services used in export due to various reasons including services not specified, discrepancies in transport documents, invoices issued in the name of head office, and failure to provide invoices from a specific service provider.

Analysis:

(A) Denial of refund claim for services not specified under Notification No. 41/2007:
The appellant's refund claim was denied for services received at the port, which were not considered as specified services under the notification. However, the CBEC Circular clarified that services at the port do qualify as port services. Therefore, the denial of the refund claim on this ground was held unjustified.

(B) Denial of refund claim due to discrepancies in transport documents:
The denial of the refund claim based on discrepancies in transport documents, such as missing details like ICD Code, was considered technical in nature. Referring to a previous case, it was established that procedural infractions in export documents should be ignored while granting refunds. As long as the services are specified for refund purposes and taxes were paid on them, the exporter is entitled to the refund. Hence, the denial of the refund claim on this ground was deemed unwarranted.

(C) Denial of refund claim for invoices issued in the name of the head office:
The denial of the refund claim due to invoices being issued in the name of the appellant's head office instead of the factory was addressed. A previous tribunal decision highlighted that substantive benefits should not be denied based on procedural grounds. As long as there is no dispute regarding the input services received, the refund claim cannot be rejected solely on this procedural issue.

(D) Denial of refund claim for failure to provide specific invoices:
The appellant's refund claim was also denied for not providing invoices from a particular service provider. The tribunal directed the appellant to submit the required invoices within 30 days for further examination by the adjudicating authority. Until the invoices are provided, the claim related to these specific services will not be entertained. The matter was remanded back to the adjudicating authority for further scrutiny and sanctioning of refund claims in accordance with the law.

In conclusion, the appellate tribunal disposed of the appeals by remanding the matter back to the adjudicating authority for further examination and approval of the refund claims related to specific issues highlighted in the judgment.