2018 (9) TMI 1378 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of Credit of Service tax paid - export of I.T. Services - refund rejected on the ground that credit on catering services is not admissible to the assessee and also on the ground that further description of some of the services is not mentioned on the body of the invoices. Catering services - Held that - The catering services which have been held to be cenvatable by the larger bench s decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-V V/s GTC Industries LTD. 2008 (9) TMI 56 - CESTAT MUMBAI - catering services are cenvatable and as such the credit so availed by the appellant is refundable to them - refund allowed. Description of the services not being specified in the body of the invoices - Held that - Such services were received by their Foreign Service Providers and by paying the service tax on reverse charge basis they have given the full description of the said services along with the accounting number. If that be so, the credit cannot be disallowed to the appellant on the procedural technical issue - Credit allowed. Refund of small amount also denied on the ground that the Name of the assessee has been wrongly shown in the invoices issued by the services provider instead of showing the correct name of the appellant - Held that - The amount being on the lower sides, appellant is not contesting the same. Appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claims of service tax paid on input services for export of I.T. services.
2. Rejection of refund on grounds related to Chartered Accountant services, catering services, and incomplete invoices.
3. Cenvatability of catering services.
4. Refund eligibility based on the completeness of invoice descriptions.
5. Denial of refund due to incorrect name on invoices and small denied amounts.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, engaged in exporting I.T. services, sought refunds for service tax paid on input services. The Original Adjudicating Authority partially allowed the refund, leading to the present appeal after rejection of a portion of the claimed amount.

2. The refund claims were contested on three grounds: a) Chartered Accountant services not qualifying as input services, b) inadmissibility of credit on catering services, and c) incomplete descriptions on some invoices. The Lower Authorities upheld the rejection of catering services refund but allowed the Chartered Accountant services refund.

3. The dispute primarily centered around the cenvatability of catering services, with the Tribunal referencing precedent decisions supporting the credit availed by the appellant. The Tribunal found no basis to deny the refund for catering services, as they were deemed cenvatable based on established legal interpretations.

4. Regarding incomplete invoice descriptions, the appellant clarified that full details were provided to Foreign Service Providers, including service tax payment on a reverse charge basis. The Tribunal held that the lack of detailed descriptions on invoices should not disqualify the appellant from claiming the credit, emphasizing the procedural nature of the issue.

5. Additionally, a minor amount was denied due to incorrect naming on invoices, which the appellant did not contest due to the nominal value. Similarly, the denial of another small amount was accepted without contest. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, except for the specified amounts, affirming the appellant's entitlement to the majority of the claimed refund.

This comprehensive analysis highlights the key legal arguments, decisions, and rationale presented in the judgment, ensuring a detailed understanding of the case's intricacies and outcomes.