2023 (12) TMI 951 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of service tax paid - appellant was not able to furnish lorry receipts giving the details of Invoice/Shipping bill issued by the transporters - non-compliance with the condition in Notification No.17/2009-ST dt. 7.7.2009 - HELD THAT - The department has given the details of the transportation charges in the SCN itself. The appellant has also furnished a Chartered Accountant certificate certifying the correlation with the transportation charges as well as the shipping bills. There is no dispute that these charges were paid by the appellant for export of goods. The non-production of lorry receipts is only a procedural infraction for which the substantive right of refund claim cannot be rejected. In the appellant's own case, the Commissioner (Appeals) for a different period has allowed the refund claim observing that the non-production of lorry receipt is a procedural infraction and that when the appellant as furnished Charted Accountant certificate, the same has to be accepted. The department cannot take a different view in similar situation of the same appellant for a different period. The rejection of refund claim on procedural grounds cannot be justified - the appellant is eligible for refund - the impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed.

Issues involved:
The issue involves the rejection of a refund claim by the authorities below based on the appellant's non-compliance with the conditions in Notification No.17/2009-ST dt. 7.7.2009.

Comprehensive Details:

1. Facts and Background:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing goods falling under Chapter 27 of CETA, 1985, exported goods and claimed a refund of service tax paid under Notification No.17/2009-ST dt. 7.7.2009. While the refund claim for certain services was sanctioned, the claim for transportation charges from the factory to the port utilized for export was rejected. The appellant appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the rejection, leading the appellant to approach the Tribunal.

2. Appellant's Argument:
The appellant argued that as per Notification No.17/2009-ST, specific conditions need to be satisfied for refund claims. Despite not furnishing lorry receipts, the appellant provided a Chartered Accountant's certificate relating to shipping bills for transportation services availed for exporting goods.

3. Contention on Board's Circular:
The appellant referred to Board's circular No.120/01/2010 -ST to establish a one-to-one correlation of services through a Chartered Accountant certificate. The appellant emphasized the circular's binding nature on the department, issued to address exporters' challenges in obtaining lorry receipts.

4. Department's Stand:
The Department argued that as lorry receipts were not produced, the refund was rightly rejected based on the conditions of the notification. The Department reiterated the findings of the original authority.

5. Tribunal's Decision:
After considering the submissions, the Tribunal found that the appellant had provided details of transportation charges and a Chartered Accountant certificate certifying the correlation with shipping bills. The non-production of lorry receipts was viewed as a procedural infraction, not warranting rejection of the substantive right to a refund claim.

6. Precedent and Conclusion:
The Tribunal noted that in a prior case for the appellant, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the refund claim for a similar procedural issue. Therefore, the rejection of the refund claim on procedural grounds was deemed unjustified. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeals were allowed with any consequential relief.

This summary encapsulates the key aspects of the judgment, highlighting the arguments, considerations, and final decision made by the Tribunal regarding the rejection of the refund claim.

← Previous Next →