The Chennai bench of the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) observed that the non-production of lorry receipt is a procedural infraction and directed to allow the service tax refund based on the Chartered Accountant (CA’s) certificate.
M/s.Raj Petro Specialties Ltd, the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of goods falling under Chapter 27 of CETA, 1985. They exported their goods and utilized certain services and claimed a refund of service tax paid under the Notification No.17/2009-ST dt. 7.7.2009. The authorities below sanctioned the refund claim in respect of certain services however, rejected the refund claim in respect of transportation charges claimed by the appellant from the factory to the port utilized for the export of goods. Against such order, the appellant filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide order impugned herein upheld the rejection of the refund claim.
Counsel Sri Bharat R. Srinivas appeared and submitted that as per Notification No.17/2009-ST dt. 7.7.2009 the table provides the conditions to be satisfied. A one-to-one correlation of the services availed can be established by producing a Chartered Accountant certificate. The appellant has furnished a Chartered Accountant certificate wherein the shipping bills, as well as transportation charges, have been given in detail.
The adjudicating authority has refused to apply the Board’s circular and has held that the notification prevails over the Board’s circular. It is submitted that the Board’s circular is binding on the department. The said clarification is issued due to the difficulties faced by the exporters in obtaining lorry receipts from transporters and complying with the conditions of the notification strictly.
When the department does not dispute the utilization of the services or the payment of transportation charges, the refund claim ought not to have been denied on a procedural aspect of not producing the lorry receipts. It was submitted that in the appellant’s case for an earlier period, the Commissioner (Appeals) on an identical issue had held that the infraction being procedural, the refund claim cannot be rejected.
Sri M. Ambe appeared and argued for the Department. The condition of the notification was asserted by the A.R. to argue that as the lorry receipts have not been produced by the appellant, the refund has been rightly rejected. The findings by the original authority were reiterated by the A.R.
A two-member bench comprising of Ms Sulekha Beevi C S, Member (Judicial) and Mr Vasa Seshagiri Rao, Member (Technical) observed that in the appellant’s case, the Commissioner (Appeals) for a different period has allowed the refund claim observing that the nonproduction 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 a similar situation of the same appellant for a different period.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of the refund claim on procedural grounds cannot be justified. We hold that the appellant is eligible for a refund and set aside the impugned order while allowing the appeal.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscanpremium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
