9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (6) TMI 123 - AT - Service TaxRefund of Service Tax - services used in export of goods - Refund rejected on the ground that the registration number of the service providers was not mentioned in the invoices issued by the service provider - time limitation - GTA Service for transportation of goods from ICD to Port was not supported with proper document - lack of co-relation of export with documents of service provided of storage and warehouse - improper documents, name of appellant not mentioned in the documents. Registration number of the service providers was not mentioned in the invoices issued by the service provider - HELD THAT - The learned Commissioner (Appeals) denied the refund solely relying upon the Circular No. 106/9/2008-ST dated 11.12.2008 whereas the same Circular was amended by Circular No. 112/6/2009-ST dated 12.03.2009 - the refund claim cannot be rejected merely because the service provider has not mentioned registration number in their invoices. Moreover, there is no dispute raised by the Revenue on the facts that goods have been exported, service was used for export of goods and the value of service including service tax was paid to the service provider. In these undisputed facts, merely because registration was not mentioned in the invoices it does not mean that appellant has not used the said services for export of goods - the rejection of refund on this count is not sustainable. Time Limitation - Refund claim pertaining to the period October 2007 to December 2007 for which refund claim was filed after a period of 60 days, therefore hit by limitation - HELD THAT - The refund for the quarter January 2008 to March 2008 which included the present claim pertaining to October 2007 to December 2007 was filed on 29.05.2008. Therefore, it was held that refund was filed beyond 60 days, hence inadmissible - the adjudicating authority adjudicated the show cause notice in 31.03.2009 and by which time the period of 60 days was extended to six months. Therefore, the extended period upto six months should have been considered. Accordingly, refund was well within time period of six months and hence does not hit by limitation. Refund claim filed for service tax paid on GTA Service for transportation of goods from ICD to Port was not supported with proper documents, co-related with export of goods - HELD THAT - The services covered under Serial No. 6 of Notification No. 41/2007-ST which does not stipulate any condition. Moreover, transportation of goods from ICD to Port was undoubtedly for export of goods only. Therefore, importing any condition which is not exist in the notification is beyond the jurisdiction of learned Commissioner (Appeals) and on that ground, refund should not have been rejected. Refund claim filed for storage and warehouse service rejected on the premise that there was no co-relation of export with documents of service provided of storage and warehouse - HELD THAT - There is no dispute that the entire storage areas were exclusively used for export of goods. It is not the case of the revenue that such storages and warehouses are also used for other than export goods. Therefore, there is no doubt that the said service was used for export of goods only - also, storage and warehousing premises were exclusively used for export of goods, refund claim cannot be rejected on the issue of correlation particularly in the facts of the present case. Refund claim was filed for GTA for transportation of goods from place of removal upto Port, lorry receipt did not mention name of the appellant therefore, it was held that refund claim was not filed with proper documents - HELD THAT - The transportation of goods gets clearly correlated with other documents which bear the name of the appellant. The appellant also obtained certificates from the transporters namely Ess Enn International, Sanjay Container Services and Sanjay Transport Company whereby it was certified that the invoice numbers and Lorry Receipts referred to transportation of Polyester Cotton Grey from Mafatlal Industries Limited to Port is under instruction of the appellant and due to their inadvertent mistake, the name of appellant along with Mafatlal Industries Limited was not mentioned in the Lorry Receipts. It was also certified by the transporters that against the said Lorry Receipts, the invoices were raised on the appellant and the same was paid by them. With these ample evidences, merely that the name of the appellant is not appearing on the Lorry Receipts, cannot be the reason to reject the refund. Therefore, on this ground also refund claim was wrongly rejected. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly upheld the rejection of claim - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues Involved:
1. Non-mention of service provider's registration number in invoices. 2. Refund claim time-barred due to filing after the stipulated period. 3. Lack of correlation between refund claim for GTA service and export documents. 4. Lack of correlation between refund claim for storage and warehousing services and export. 5. Non-mention of appellant’s name in Lorry Receipts for GTA service. Detailed Analysis: 1. Non-mention of Service Provider's Registration Number in Invoices: The Commissioner (Appeals) denied the refund solely relying upon Circular No. 106/9/2008-ST dated 11.12.2008. However, this circular was amended by Circular No. 112/6/2009-ST dated 12.03.2009, which clarified that refund should be granted if the services were used for export, irrespective of the registration number being mentioned. The Tribunal found that there was no dispute regarding the export of goods, use of service for export, and payment of service tax. Therefore, the rejection of the refund on this ground was not sustainable. The judgment in Crystalline Exports Limited vs. CST supported this view. 2. Refund Claim Time-barred: The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection of the refund claim on the premise that it was filed beyond the stipulated 60 days. However, the Tribunal noted that the refund claim was filed within the extended period of six months as per Notification No. 32/2008-ST dated 18.11.2008. The Tribunal referred to the case of KN Resources Pvt. Limited, which was upheld by the Chhattisgarh High Court, and other similar cases, concluding that the refund claim was within the permissible time limit and should not have been rejected on the ground of limitation. 3. Lack of Correlation for GTA Service: The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the refund claim for GTA service used for transportation of goods from ICD to Port due to a lack of correlation with export documents. The Tribunal found that Serial No. 6 of Notification No. 41/2007-ST did not stipulate any condition for such correlation. Therefore, the rejection was beyond the jurisdiction of the Commissioner (Appeals) and not justified. 4. Lack of Correlation for Storage and Warehousing Services: The refund claim for storage and warehousing services was rejected due to the absence of correlation with export documents. The Tribunal accepted the appellant's argument that the storage/warehousing was taken on a monthly rental basis and was exclusively used for export goods. The Tribunal referred to Vijay Cotton & Fiber Company vs. CST, which was upheld by the Bombay High Court, and concluded that the refund claim should not be rejected on this ground. 5. Non-mention of Appellant’s Name in Lorry Receipts: The refund claim for GTA service was denied because the Lorry Receipts did not mention the appellant's name. The Tribunal found that the goods were transported directly from Mafatlal Industries Limited to the Port, and the omission of the appellant's name was due to an inadvertent mistake by the transporters. The appellant provided certificates from the transporters confirming the transportation details. The Tribunal concluded that the refund claim should not be denied merely because the appellant's name was not mentioned in the Lorry Receipts. Conclusion: The Tribunal modified the impugned order, allowing the appeal with consequential relief, and concluded that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) had wrongly upheld the rejection of the refund claim on the above counts. The appeal was allowed with the necessary reliefs.
|
