2018 (1) TMI 646 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - invoice without signature - services provided to SEZ unit - no proper documents is required to indicate that the tax liability has been discharged by the respondent who is registered in the Cochin Special Economic Zone - Held that - It is a common knowledge that any such computer generated invoice by the banks does not require signature as the said invoice mentions specifically that this being a computer generated invoice, no signature is required . There is no dispute as to the fact that the service provider M/s. Standard Chartered Bank has paid the service tax and the appellant has also discharged the same to the service provider - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Revenue's appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. COC-EXCUS-0-APP-298-16-17 dated 21/09/2016
2. Revenue's appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. COC-EXCUS-0-APP-297-16-17 dated 21/09/2016

Analysis:
1. The Revenue contested the impugned order, arguing that the First Appellate Authority erred in setting aside the Order-in-Original due to alleged lack of proper documents indicating tax liability discharge by the respondent in the Cochin Special Economic Zone.

2. The Department's main contention was that the refund claim document, a computer-generated invoice from Standard Chartered Bank, lacked a signature. However, it was noted that such invoices explicitly stated, "this being a computer generated invoice, no signature is required." The appellant had paid the service tax to the bank, which had also paid it to the service provider. The First Appellate Authority found the rejection of the refund claim unjustified, as the invoices were valid for processing and sanctioning the claim, especially considering the satisfactory evidence of service tax payment.

3. The First Appellate Authority's findings were deemed legally sound, as they aligned with Rule 4(A) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed, upholding the impugned orders.

4. The judgment was delivered on 02/08/2017 by Shri M. V. Ravindran, Judicial Member, at the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore. The appellant was represented by Shri Naveen Kushalappa, Dy. Commissioner(AR), while no representation was made on behalf of the respondent.