2018 (4) TMI 112 - AT - Service Tax

SEZ unit - refund claim - denial on the ground that debit notes did not have the description and classification of taxable service as required under Rule 4A of Service Tax Rules 1994 - Held that - Rule 9 (1) (e) of CCR 2004 has treated the challan evidencing payment of service tax by the person liable to pay service tax under Reverse Charge Mechanism as a document on the basis of which Cenvat credit can be availed and that the respondent received the service for which they were liable to pay service tax and therefore challan can be taken as duty paying document. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has referred to para-3 (f) (ii) of said N/N. 40/2012-ST and held that the requirement in respect of said notification was that the proof of payment of Service Tax and that the services were specified for authorized operations was required to be submitted and since said requirements were fulfilled there was no need to interfere with the said Order-in-Original dated 22.07.2013. Refund to be allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. NOI/EXCUS/OOO/APPL/39/2014 dated 19/02/2014 passed by Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Noida.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the revenue against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Noida. The respondent, a SEZ unit, claimed a refund of ?21,40,93,203/- for the period from January, 2013 to March, 2013 under Notification No.40/2012-ST. The Original Authority allowed a refund of ?21,31,73,004/-. The revenue contended that the debit notes submitted by the respondent did not comply with Rule 4A of Service Tax Rules, 1994, as they lacked the description and classification of taxable service. However, the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) held that the requirements of the notification were met, and the refund was admissible. The Commissioner also referred to Rule 9 (1) (e) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, and considered the challan as a duty paying document. The revenue appealed against this decision.

During the hearing, the revenue presented their grounds of appeal, arguing that the overseas service provider did not issue documents as per Rule 4A of Service Tax Rules. The respondent, on the other hand, stated that they paid service tax under the reverse charge mechanism and provided proper documents for claiming exemption and refund. They emphasized that the service was received, service tax was paid, and they were covered by authorized operations.

After considering the submissions from both sides, the Tribunal found that the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue were already adjudicated by the Learned Commissioner (Appeals), who found them to be tenable in law. As the revenue failed to provide any reason to challenge the Commissioner's findings, the Tribunal decided not to interfere with the Order-in-Appeal and dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue.